Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MASONIC TRUST FOR GIRLS AND BOYS BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

ESSEX BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

WHITCHURCH BRIDGE BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training Schemes

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of people gain a job on leaving YTS, JTS and the community programme.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The latest complete figures show that of those young people who left YTS, some 61 per cent. were in employment three months after leaving and a further 14 per cent. went into further education or training. Information for those leaving the new job training scheme is not yet available. The latest survey of those leaving the community programme shows that some 60 per cent. have had at least one job within 12 months of leaving.

Mr. Bennett: In view of those extremely disappointing figures, does the Minister accept that the major scandal in this country at the moment is the skills shortage, which contrasts with the very large numbers of people who are unemployed? As YTS was in many cases used as an inefficient substitute for the old apprenticeship scheme, should we not be looking for 100 per cent. of people leaving YTS getting jobs? What will the Minister do to match the chronic skill shortages with the appalling level of unemployment, particularly among young people?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are developing programmes for YTS and JTS. With regard to the success of the schemes, the figures show that very substantial numbers of people coming off YTS, job training schemes and the community programme are going into employment. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that in my constituency and elsewhere young people are taking up YTS with great enthusiasm and reporting on their success? That means that at last they have an option other than to join the dole queue. Does that not contrast with the position under the previous Labour Government, when there were very few proper training schemes? It ill behoves Opposition Members to complain about YTS.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have now reached the position where everyone has the opportunity of a YTS place. That is a major step forward that is welcomed by the public.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that very few people could have obtained jobs after leaving JTS because so few people have gone on that scheme? Is it not also the case that that ill thought out plan has flopped badly and is monumentally unpopular with employers and its potential clients?

Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that that is remotely the case. It is very sad that the TUC is not supporting the scheme. Under the old JTS, 67 per cent. went into jobs. The results for the new JTS are not yet available. However, the new JTS offers opportunities to unemployed people and I believe that the mass of the public. if not the TUC, will support the scheme.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cause of young people who would particularly benefit from the youth training scheme is not helped by the fact that the scheme is continually attacked by opponents of the Government? Will he ensure that it is widely known that the people who really matter — the young people themselves — have shown very clearly in surveys that they think that the training that they have received is good?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. All the surveys carried out by the MSC into the effectiveness of the YTS show that those who have had experience of it, as opposed to those who give their views on it, are overwhelmingly satisfied with their training and experience.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the recent Public Account's Committee's report a devastating indictment of the Government's training policies? How can the Government fill training gaps when they have abolished their main source of information on training by employers? What enforcement do the Government propose to ensure that employers carry out their training responsibilities? Above all, will the Government now repudiate their political motive in extending the JTS before the problems associated with the pilot scheme are fully resolved?

Mr. Fowler: May I first welcome my eternal shadow to his new Front-Bench job for employment. I regret that he is as way off the mark on employment as he was on the Health Service. The JTS pilot started only last autumn. The JTS is designed to provide not only good training but training leading to good vocational qualifications. The hon. Gentleman would he better employed trying to persuade the TUC to change its attitude to this scheme, which provides a tremendous opportunity for many people.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the position of the community programme,


especially for those over 50? Although the community programme gives them the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to society, the probability is that, when it ends, they will become unemployed and will remain unemployed. In those circumstances, has my right hon. Friend any plans for extending the community programme?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend knows, we have plans under the community programme to give help and training to those who have been continuously unemployed for 12 months. I should like to look more carefully at the position of the over-50s — the precise point raised by my hon. Friend. I agree with his general points.

Service Industries

Mr. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on regional differences in the changes in numbers employed in the service industries since 1979.

The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): Since 1979 there has been an increase in service sector employment in every region except Wales and the northwest. Since 1983 employment in the service industries has increased in every region.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the figures for Wales over the 1979 to 1986 period are extremely disappointing? To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the failure of the Welsh economy to increase service employment on a par with the other nations and regional economies in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Cope: The figures were disappointing, but they are improving now. That was the main point of my answer. As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, in the past 12 months unemployment in Wales has fallen more rapidly than in any other part of Britain.

Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. Does he agree that the service sector, especially tourism, is an essential growth area within some of our older cities and cities such as Birmingham, which has introduced the National Exhibition Centre, the Convention Centre and the August bank holiday super-prix, pointing the way forward for new job creation?

Mr. Cope: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for his good wishes — it seems popular to stop being a Whip.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that no Opposition Member decries the service sector or tourism, but the fact is that there is a regional imbalance. In most of the regions of the north, in Wales and in Scotland manufacturing jobs and opportunities have been destroyed and service jobs have not been able to make up those numbers anywhere. The greatest cause of concern for our country is this failure in the manufacturing sector. We cannot live by service jobs alone.

Mr. Cope: Of course we cannot. However, in many countries, including ours, service jobs are increasing and manufacturing jobs are declining. That was so under the Labour Government before we took office.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recent labour market statistics.

Mr. Fowler: In the last year there has been the biggest fall in unemployment since records were first kept. The seasonally-adjusted figures have fallen by almost 300,000 and unemployment is now below 3 million.
As well as the fall in unemployment there has been a growth of over 250,000 jobs between March 1986 and March 1987. Vacancies are up by 27 per cent. on a year ago, and productivity growth is at its highest for over three years.
Unemployment, then, is falling without a return to the overmanning of the past.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that vastly improving employment picture is being greeted with mounting dismay on the Opposition Benches? It is as though the Opposition had a vested interest in bad news. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that unemployment among the under-25s is now lower in this country than in any other Common Market country, and will he call upon Opposition Members to welcome that?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's initial point is correct. As for the unemployment rate among the under-25s, the latest European Community average—for 1986—is 23 per cent. The United Kingdom rate at that time was 18 per cent. That must be compared with a rate of 34 per cent. in Italy, and 23 per cent. in France. In the past 12 months, unemployment among the under-25s has decreased further to 16 per cent.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State tell us when the unemployment level will reach the figure for 1979? In this much-vaunted increase in jobs, how many are low-paid service sector jobs, and how many are in manufacturing? Is it not true that under the Tory regime our country has lost 2 million jobs in the manufacturing industry, and that the Prime Minister has destroyed more factories in our country than Hitler managed to between 1939 and 1945?

Mr. Fowler: Typically, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in virtually everything that he has said. Service jobs in this country are certainly increasing, and those jobs are real and important. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) sought to say a moment ago, that should surely be welcomed by every hon. Member, and I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to do that.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I was first returned by the electors of Corby four years ago unemployment in that constituency stood at 8,000? Last week's unemployment figures showed that it was down to 3,900. Is that not the biggest fall in unemployment anywhere in the country, and is it not mainly the result of Government policies?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crucial point is that the strength of the economy has meant unemployment coming down throughout the country. It is coming down, not just in my hon. Friend's area, but in all other regions. Some of the biggest falls have been in such areas as Wales, the west midlands and the north-west. It is about time that the Opposition welcomed that trend.

Mr. Strang: Is it a matter of concern to the Secretary of State that the distribution of job opportunities in the different regions is so unequal? For example, whereas in the south-east there are eight unemployed people for every vacancy, in Yorkshire and Humberside there are 17. Is the Government's attitude to that distribution one of laissez-faire, or do they seek to change the position?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that there has been a real fall in unemployment in all regions of the United Kingdom in the last month—indeed, over the past year—and that some of the biggest falls have been in areas such as Wales, the west midlands and the north-west: in other words, in the regions where unemployment had previously been the highest. In addition, we have found that long-term unemployment has fallen by some 61,000 in the last year. That is the largest 12-month fall since records began. Moreover, unemployment has fallen faster in the past year than in any other industrialised country. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

YTS

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that YTS training is of a high quality.

Mr. Cope: We are working with the Manpower Services Commission to build up the quality of training on YTS so that every trainee will he working towards a recognised vocational qualification from an appropriate examining body. From April 1988 all YTS providers will have to meet the stringent standards laid down for approved training organisations. And the training standards advisory service now provides quality audits of YTS schemes.

Mr. Mitchell: Given that in my constituency 65 per cent. of young people on YTS have graduated to full-time employment, what steps has the Minister taken to spread this good news more widely?

Mr. Cope: We do our best — so does the Manpower Services Commission — to spread the news, particularly about the quality of YTS, as much as possible. The best advertisement for YTS are those who have done it. That is the theme of the television advertising campaign that the MSC is undertaking.

Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that there are great regional variations both in the quality of the YTS schemes on offer and in the number of young people who succeed in obtaining jobs at the end of their training, and that in the north we suffer on both counts? What will the Minister do to redress the balance and ensure that young people in the north are given the same opportunities as exist in other regions?

Mr. Cope: I am afraid that there are bound to be regional variations in everything. That is why we are having this drive to increase the quality of YTS, not only in the south, but in the north.

Mr. Oppenheim: When my hon. Friend has a moment to do so, will he look at the Labour party's 1979 election manifesto, which boasted that the then youth oppor-tunities programme was the finest training programme in Europe? Why is it that Opposition Members thought that

that was a fine training programme when its much improved successor, the YTS, is constantly whinged about?

Mr. Cope: I suppose that it was the best that they could think of in 1979, and I am sorry that they do n at recognise that YTS is an improved version of it.

Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister knows, as we know in Yorkshire, that one gets owt for nowt? Unless we spend more money and resources on youth training, it will never make good the skills deficiencies that arc emerging throughout British industry and that are preventing our manufacturing base from recovering to the extent that it should.

Mr. Cope: I referred earlier to our manufacturing base. However, we are spending £1 billion a year on YTS, which is a lot of money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend, who did an excellent job in his last appointment, as I am sure he will in this, ensure that one defect in the quality of YTS is remedied, namely, that if a young person is one day over the specified birth date when he enters the scheme he is kicked out of the two-year scheme after only one year in it?

Mr. Cope: Wherever we drew the line, I am afraid that there would be somebody who was one day on the wrong side of it. My hon. Friend was kind enough to raise a constituency case that drew attention to this problem. I have undertaken to look into it, and I shall do so.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that within the nursing profession there is concern about the impact of YTS? First, it cuts across the Government's stated objective of providing more professional training within nursing. Secondly, the supervision that is required to ensure the required quality of training takes experienced nurses away from their prime job of looking after patients

Mr. Cope: I do not think that concern about YTS coming into the National Health Service is justified. We are doing our best to introduce YTS into many parts of the public service, and that is how it should be. To improve the quality of YTS we have introduced approved training organisations and the other measures.

Tourism

Mr. David Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the progress of the programme for introducing a new system for signposting sites of tourist interest.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Signposting is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 'Transport. However, I understand that good progress is being made. Signs have been authorised for about 2,000 attractions and more are about to go up.

Mr. Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I recognise the importance of these initiatives for the hope of prosperity in my constituency, in other parts of Somerset and in the inner cities. Will he describe what broad criteria are used to designate tourist interest sites on motorways? Will he and his ministerial colleagues pay attention to the desirability of attracting foreign tourists in particular to areas of the country other than the congested sites of London, Windsor and Oxford?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend represents a lovely part of the country; Somerset has many tourist attractions. At Easter we had a happy family holiday at the Caernarvon Arms near Dulverton, and I strongly commend that part of the country.
The criteria for signposting are set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. They are, first, where there are over 150,000 visitors a year; secondly, where there is adequate car parking; and, thirdly, where tourist attractions are sited within 20 miles of a motorway junction. I take the point about spreading the benefits of tourism to the many regions that are outside some of the traditional tourist spots.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that tourist areas do not need signposting? It is easy to see where they are because they are ankle-deep in litter. Is the Minister aware that it is a year since Mr. Richard Branson, the famous entrepreneur, was appointed to clear up litter, yet it has become worse? Why does he not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with signposting?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. UK 2000, which is making satisfactory progress, was not set up to clear litter. With regard to the clearance of litter — I take the hon. Gentleman's point — as Minister with responsibilities for tourism I am campaigning for a spotless Britain. We could do a lot more to clear up the excess of litter. There are too many areas of this country that have too much litter, which is appalling in comparison with many other overseas tourist attractions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if senior hon. Members set a good example by sticking to the question.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend give the latest estimate of the number of new jobs that have been created in the tourist industry this year and in previous years?

Hon. Members: Signposting.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is miles wide of the subject.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the reduction in the underlying unemployment figures is due to the Government's restart programme and other similar measures; and what proportion is due to an increase in the actual number of jobs available.

Mr. Fowler: It is not possible to assess separately the effects on the unemployment count of Government measures and of the increasing number of jobs that are available in the economy. Government measures, including the restart programme, are helping unemployed people to compete more effectively in the labour market and take up the new jobs that are being generated.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that people in Wales, in particular, are a bit fed up with the Government's claims that unemployment is falling, when they witness and experience mass unemployment all around them? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the problem of unemployment will not be solved by

shuffling people from one register to another or by fiddling the statistics? What we need is an upsurge in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Fowler: I thought that I had said earlier that one of the biggest falls in unemployment over the past 12 months was in Wales. Surely the hon. Gentleman should welcome that as being the case. The restart programme provides an entry into a number of programmes, such as the community programme, enterprise allowance and job clubs. That is serving a useful and valuable function.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members commend the expertise of the staff of his Department? It has played a valuable role in the restart programme. Not only has the programme enabled many people to find work who were finding it difficult to compete in the labour market, but it has also identified those few people who clearly have no intention of working.

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of restart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, is to provide regular employment interviews for people who have been out of work for more than six months and to help them find a suitable job. I believe that that has been valuable. I also believe—this goes further than restart—that there is no point in seeking to pay social security payments to those people who are not genuinely unemployed.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Secretary of State accept that a reduction in the unemployment figures is not the same as finding real work for the unemployed? Will he accept that only one in every 100 of those who go on to the restart programme find real jobs? When are the Government going to start to honour the commitment they made in the 1979 election to create real and not phoney jobs for the unemployed?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept for one moment the statistic used by the hon. Gentleman. It is based on a total misunderstanding of the position. The number of jobs has been increasing every quarter for the past four years, and 1·2 million jobs have been created since March 1983. There are over 24 million people in employment in this country. They are significant figures and they are real jobs.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of those who are unemployed are unqualified and unskilled and that the vast majority of jobs available require skills and qualifications, and that the restart programme helps direct people towards training for skills? To that end, my right hon. Friend would be welcome were he to visit the skills shop in Banbury, part of the training access points initiative, where people can walk in off the street, find out what skills are required in the labour market and obtain training for those skills. It has been a great success in helping bring down the unemployment rate in north Oxfordshire.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Restart provides an entry to programmes such as the community programme, enterprise allowance schemes and job clubs. In that respect, it is a valuable way of bringing people back into employment.

Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State accept that, although the restart scheme may be of help to some of the long-term unemployed, it does not create any additional


new jobs? He may take credit for the reduction of unemployment levels at present, but is that not outrageous in view of the fact that the Government have created the highest level of unemployment and then sit there confidently and claim that they are reducing it, when it is still at an unacceptable level?

Mr. Fowler: Unemployment is coming down and that is shown not just in the figures for the past month but for the past 12 months. That trend is unmistakable. The number of new jobs created has been increasing in every quarter for the past four years. I would have thought that that was something that Labour Members would welcome.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the bulk of the reduction has been through people going into jobs rather than schemes and that unemployment in the north-east has now been falling by 1,500 per month for the past six months? Will he also confirm that evidence of recovery in the region is now unmistakable, even for the professional pessimists in the Opposition?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The same can be said of many other regions of the country. It is true not only for the north-east but for the west midlands and many other areas. The trend is unmistakable and, as my hon. Friend said, it is only the Opposition who are seeking to challenge that.

Tourism

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the tourist industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lee: Estimates of the number of jobs supported by tourism spending range around 1·4 million.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that a large number of jobs in tourism are seasonal and, as such, after three years people involved in those jobs will lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit? That not only hits those seasonal workers hard, but distorts the unemployment figures. What does the Department intend to do to ensure that unemployment benefit will be payable to seasonal workers who have been working in tourism for more than three years?

Mr. Lee: Of course, some of the jobs in tourism are seasonal. One accepts that. If I remember correctly, that was the point made by the hon. Member in the Adjournment debate on tourism about 10 days ago. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the whole range of schemes available under the action for jobs programme, which will provide every opportunity for those who are in seasonal work to seek and achieve other job opportunities in their free period.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend accept that employment will not increase in the tourist industry unless we solve our serious litter problem? Will he join me in approaching our hon. Friends to ask them to consider whether a Government litter warning could be placed on every disposable package sold over the counter in this country to try to cure this dreadful curse?

Mr. Lee: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We should be ashamed of the quantities of litter on our streets

and our resorts. I agree, too, with the earlier point of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I shall examine the specific suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that in many areas of the country tourism is declining as more people are able to go to areas offering year-round facilities and guaranteed sunshine? Will he use his influence in the Cabinet to push for more indoor all-weather facilities to create, not only more seasonal jobs in tourism, but more year-round jobs of use to the community as a whole?

Mr. Lee: Cornwall and the west country have many popular tourist attractions and people come to Cornwall for specific reasons. Increasingly, all-weather facilities are being constructed. Indeed, in all, £1 billion-worth of construction jobs are under way in the tourism and leisure industries.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to publish in the Official Report the fact that a fundamental change has taken place in the relationship of manufacturing and service sector jobs since 1945? Having accepted, as most sensible people do, that the trend will inevitably continue, may I ask my hon. Friend to examine the ways in which tourism in particular, and the service industries in general, can help the Government to achieve their objective of increased employment opportunities in inner-city areas?

Mr. Lee: The trends in manufacturing and service employment since 1945–46 are well known and well documented. Often, jobs in tourism and the service industries complement manufacturing, and vice versa. Let us take the example of the construction of a new hotel and the manufactured products that go into it — from building materials to kitchen equipment, furniture and uniforms for the staff. Tourism and manufacturing are in many cases complementary.

Inner Cities

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution his Department will make to Her Majesty's Government's strategy towards inner-city areas.

Mr. Cope: Our Department and the Manpower Services Commission contribute an estimated £240 million towards employment, training and enterprise programmes in inner city partnership areas and the 16 task force areas. The inner cities already have a high priority for those programmes and will continue to do so.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister help us to resolve the apparent dilemma that exists in the Cabinet between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is reported as saying that it is possible for inner-city residents to win inner-city jobs and that it is legally possible to discriminate in their favour. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that it was not possible to discriminate in favour of inner-city residents.
Does the Minister think that in future his Department might do rather better than creating bodies such as the London Docklands Development Corporation, which has meant that unemployment in constituencies such as mine


has increased every year and that jobs have gone principally to people who live a long way outside the inner cities?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman asks me to deliberate between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Section 35 of the Race Relations Act 1976, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, deals with the restriction applied to members of a particular racial group, of access to education, training and welfare on the ground that that restriction fulfills a special need for improvement in those respects. That in no way contradicts what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he knows that the south London business initiative and the north Peckham task force and other agencies of my Department are doing their best to help in his constituency.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that the resolution of our inner-city problems does not rest on his Department alone and requires the willing co-operation of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and others. In his specific contribution to the problem, may I urge him to view with caution the speeches that he will hear from people in the inner cities who claim to represent various groups—they do not—and others who want to help but who should not be let out without a lead? Those people can usually spend vast sums of public money to very little effect.

Mr. Cope: I shall do my best to identify the people to whom my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Rees: Does the Minister realise that, despite what was just said, few of the people who take the major decisions on the inner cities know much about them, live in them or work in them? Will he ensure that his and other Departments accept advice from those who live and work in the area, because some of the decisions that are taken are palpably foolish?

Mr. Cope: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience and will know that we take advice from those who are there and from people elsewhere who can contribute to the inner cities. We must bring expertise and assistance into the inner cities from outside those areas, as well as try our best to encourage enterprise and vigour in the people of the inner cities. We shall try to combine all these things.

Mr. Leigh: What contribution has been made to the regeneration of inner-city docklands in London and Liverpool by the national dock labour scheme?

Mr. Cope: I do not have responsibility in the Department for the national dock labour scheme. The scheme undoubtedly has a high priority in some people's minds and less in others. It is extremely difficult to tell what its contribution has been to employment.

Mr. Heffer: Since, immediately after the general election, the Prime Minister said that her strategy was to win back votes for the Conservative party in the inner cities, will the Minister explain precisely what the Government's strategy is in relation to the inner city of Liverpool?

Mr. Cope: The Government's strategy has been and remains to do all that we can to revive the inner cities. The

hon. Gentleman knows that much has been done in Merseyside, to some of which he has contributed. There is a series of schemes to improve it. The Department of Employment provides training and encouragement of enterprise, and other Departments provide urban development corporations, urban regeneration grants, enterprise zones, estates action and a series of other programmes.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large measure of the blame for joblessness in the inner cities rests with profligate Labour-controlled local authorities, whose high-spending policies have forced up rates, which in turn have forced out businesses and jobs?

Mr. Cope: It is noticeable that the problems in the inner cities have grown while many local authorities have been spending a great deal of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money.

Mr. Meacher: Is it not clear from the Department of Employment's subordinate position in the division of responsibilities that, after eight years of destroying jobs in the inner cities, the Government still have job creation well down their order of priorities? Since the Local Government Bill prohibits contract compliance — the Minister has not answered this question—what incentive will there be for suburban building contractors to take on local labour? What guarantee can he offer to local people in greatest need of training and employment that they will not simply be left on the sidelines?

Mr. Cope: No one can guarantee the training and employment, but we have targeted our training and employment measures towards the inner cities in particular. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly why we have done that. My Department is working alongside the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and others in trying to solve these problems, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office.

Tourism

Mr. Kirkhope: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of tourist visits made to the United Kingdom in 1986.

Mr. Lee: There were 13·8 million visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents in 1986.

Mr. Kirkhope: I welcome that reply by my hon. Friend. What further measures is he considering to encourage an increase in the number of tourists to industrial areas and cities in the north of England, especially Leeds?

Mr. Lee: The British Tourist Authority is working extremely hard abroad and the regional tourist boards are working very hard in the United Kingdom. I also pay tribute to what the Leeds city council is now trying to do in the area of tourism, and I draw to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the new playhouse at Quarry Hill, the conference and exhibition centre close to the Dragonara hotel and the construction of the tropical house and butterfly house at Canal gardens at Roundhay park, among others.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Atkinson: With Iran exporting its terror on to the streets of London, Paris and Vienna once again, will my right hon. Friend consider new initiatives with our European allies to combat this form of international terrorism by the Ayatolla that will, for the first time, take into account the substantial and growing resistance to the Khomeni regime within Iran?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that terrorism cannot be tolerated, whatever its source. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very active, together with his opposite numbers throughout the European Economic Community, in trying to get maximum co-operation on intelligence and all other matters between countries in the Community to enable us the better to fight terrorism. Matters inside Iran are for the Iranian people to deal with.

Mr. Kinnock: I first of all support what the right hon. Lady has just said about the intensification of anti-terrorist measures. While it is clearly right that the Royal Navy Armilla patrol should act in self-defence if that is necessary, will the right hon. Lady confirm that she will not allow the British Ensign to be flown on any ships other than British ships?

The Prime Minister: It is the Royal Navy's duty, through the Armilla patrol, to protect ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, and it does. The ships that it protects are ships that fly the British flag.

Mr. Kinnock: I do not know whether the Prime Minister misheard me. Will she confirm that no ships other than British ships will be allowed to fly the British Flag?

The Prime Minister: if other ships apply to fly the British flag, that application is considered separately in each case.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is speaking of registration in Britain, that is one thing. If she is talking about a reflagging procedure, that is entirely another. Will she confirm that she will not follow the course of action followed by the United States Administration and permit the reflagging of ships that are not British ships, with the British Ensign?

The Prime Minister: For "flagging", let me substitute the word "registration". If other ships apply for British registration, the ordinary conditions apply, and we consider each of them separately.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is concern at the moment about the Iran-Iraq conflict, the campaign in Afghanistan seems to be completely forgotten? Is it not time to have another effort, in the United Nations in particular, to resolve the fighting in Afghanistan and to achieve the withdrawal of Russian troops?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Afghanistan is never forgotten by this country, nor, do I believe, by the whole of the Western free world. We are constantly saying to the Soviets that so long as they are in Afghanistan there will never be any fundamental trust and friendship between our country and theirs. We are also constantly saying that Soviet troops should withdraw and that we would accept a completely non-aligned Afghanistan.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whereas the Church of England enjoys exemptions that have enabled it to provide facilities for the homeless, the infirm and the dying, the community charge will cost the Church of England an estimated additional £4 million a year, and that some monasteries, churches and convents will have to find an additional £10,000 a year? In view of that, how can the Prime Minister justify such a crippling burden? Does she accept the charge made by many churches that it is a tax on prayer and care?

The Prime Minister: I have written—I am not quite certain whether to the hon. Gentleman or to other hon. Members — about the matter. The community charge will be a personal charge. The Church of England would not wish to avoid a charge that all other citizens would have to pay.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's initiative to stimulate scientific research and development will be widely welcomed? Do we not need the full support of the scientific community and industry's wholehearted commitment and investment in research and development, which are vital to their future and to our prosperity?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government's response to the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place shows the importance that we attach to the subject. She will be aware that the proportion of our national income that we devote to civil research on the part of the taxpayer exceeds that which is devoted in either Japan or the United States. She will also be aware of the strenuous efforts that we have made to bring universities and private business more closely together. The new arrangement ensures that we shall have a committee within the Cabinet, to consider, together with the scientific community, the proper priorities for science and technology and to try to apply them in all the allocations of money to the several Departments.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: Referring to the Prime Minister's earlier reply, is she inviting merchant marine vessels from other countries to sail under the British flag and seek British registration so that they can be protected by the British Navy?

The Prime Minister: No, nor can the hon. Gentleman interpret anything that I have said in that light.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Mr. Gorbachev wants to be seen in the West as a genuine peacemaker, he should show a bit more enthusiasm for the nuclear arms reductions discussions that are now going on and which are beginning to slow down?

The Prime Minister: It has been said that the Soviet Union was dragging its feet in relation to the arms talks in Geneva. It is important that we take time to get the verification measures absolutely right. They are complicated, particularly if the Soviet Union wishes to retain 100 SS20s further over on the eastern side of the Soviet Union. We would like a global zero of such weapons. That is difficult enough to verify, but the additional retention of 100 would make it more difficult. It is possible to get an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States by the end of this year. They must all now get down thoroughly to the detailed negotiations.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Maxton: In view of the growing speculation that the poll tax in England will be phased in over a five-year period, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, first, there will be no reintroduction of phasing-in in Scotland, but that the full implementation of the poll tax in Scotland will be delayed until the full implementation of the poll tax in England and Wales? Secondly, will she give an assurance that the long title of the English and the Welsh Bill will allow for any amendment of the Scottish legislation that might take place?

The Prime Minister: The legislation as if affects Scotland has gone through all its stages and passed into law through all the proper procedures. It will be implemented in Scotland exactly as it was intended. It is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not applying for separatism and is, therefore, prepared to submit to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Wells: What was the reason for, and the result of, my right hon. Friend's visit to Jamaica?

The Prime Minister: I went to Jamaica to discuss the situation there with Mr. Seaga. The country has considerable economic difficulties and a difficult restructuring programme. It is receiving help from the International Monetary Fund. We give it some aid. For example, among other things I visited the police academy there, which receives help and resources from our police. I looked at the way in which Jamaica is fighting the drug problem. We discussed aid for another project because Mr. Seaga is keen to raise the standard of education in schools. We also discussed investment in Jamaica and the prospects for the world economy, among other things.

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the right hon. Lady has confirmed that those who care for their elderly at home will suffer under the poll tax, what is she proposing to help to keep those families together?

The Prime Minister: If those who care for their elderly at home receive only supplementary benefit, as the hon. Gentleman is aware the community charge will first be rebated to the extent of 20 per cent. After that, such people will receive a payment equal to the average community charge for the United Kingdom to enable them to meet the rest. That payment may be above the amount of the community charge, or it may be slightly less. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the principle of the community charge is that adults in all parts of the country will pay the same charge for the same level of services after taking account of the needs of different areas. Therefore, people who receive only supplementary benefit will have that remission.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the litter situation in Jamaica and say whether we have anything—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we are approaching the summer holiday perhaps the hon. Lady will rephrase that question. I do not think that the Prime Minister is responsible for litter in Jamaica.

Mrs. Gorman: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the problem of litter in Jamaica? Will she inform the House whether we can learn any lessons from the way in which that problem is handled there?

The Prime Minister: The Government of Jamaica — [Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The Government of Jamaica pursue a vigorous policy of privatisation, as a result of which the streets are extremely clean. There is not a piece of litter to be seen. The amount that the local authorities had hitherto spent on street cleaning, under which the streets were not clean, was put out to privatisation as a result of which—I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me this question—for the same amount of money the streets are cleaned privately three times a day, and are clean.

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the widespread disquiet on all sides of the House about the morality of the poll tax, will the Prime Minister accept that she ought to follow the precedent that she established last year and allow it to be decided on a free vote of the House?

The Prime Minister: No. This was a foremost part of our manifesto. If people pay a high community charge it will be because they have grossly extravagant local authorities, which are frequently taking time to get expenditure down.

Iran-Iraq Conflict

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about yesterday's Security Council resolution 598 on the Iran-Iraq conflict.
My attendance at yesterday's Security Council meeting, together with six other Foreign Ministers, underlines the importance which we attach to this resolution: as well as representing a united approach by the five permanent members, it owes much to British initiative, and is the culmination of many months work.
This resolution, which was passed unanimously by the Council, is mandatory, and demands an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised boundaries without delay. It is carefully balanced and favours neither of the parties more than the other. Both should be able to accept it. In the event of non-compliance, the Council will meet to discuss possible enforcement measures.
The Secretary-General will have a major role in the implementation of the resolution and with bringing the parties to a negotiated settlement of the conflict.
This mandatory resolution reflects the gravity with which the whole international community views the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq and the consequent threat to stability and peace. The resolution is a determined attempt to tackle the underlying causes of tension in the region.
Attacks on shipping are at present the most dangerous symptom of that tension. I made clear in yesterday's Security Council debate the urgent need not only for a settlement of the conflict as a whole, but also for a halt to attacks on shipping in the Gulf. It is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation, and the Armilla patrol continues to play its part by providing protection for British vessels.
The world has never been more united in seeking an end to this bloody and senseless conflict. The international community yesterday made plain to the parties that it looks for a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement of the dispute through negotiation and diplomacy rather than by force of arms. The United Nations resolution offers both parties the right way forward. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging them to seize that opportunity.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Her Majesty's Opposition fully support the unanimous mandatory Security Council resolution? We regard it as right that the Foreign Secretary went personally to the United Nations to advocate it.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how long the Government will wait to decide whether there has been compliance or non-compliance? Unless the resolution is speedily obeyed by both sides, we believe that the United Nations must take further action speedily in the shape not of Britain's curious present ban on what it calls lethal arms, but a total international arms embargo.
Britain should take the lead and should immediately examine whether the Iranian arms procurement agency at 4 Victoria street should be allowed to continue its activities. It is vital that nothing should be done to

exacerbate a dangerous situation. Will the Government, even at this late stage, discourage the United States from any adventurist plans to escort a reflagged fleet through the Gulf? Such an action is unpredictable and. could lead to uncontrollable escalation and grave consequences not only for peace in the immediate area but for world peace. It could alienate the Russians, whose co-operation is both essential and encouraging.
We support the Government's assertion of the right of self-defence for British warships in the area. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House a firm assurance that the British Government will not go beyond that and take provocative unilateral action? Will he distinguish between the formal registration procedure and the charade of a reflagging procedure — what we might call rent-a-flag? We believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was absolutely right yesterday to say that Britain should keep a non-provocative low profile. Any additional peace-keeping action should not be unilateral action by a single power but should be organised through the United Nations.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Her Majesty's Opposition will support firm British action to stamp down on Iranian or other terrorism here in Britain, and that if the perpetrator of Saturday's bomb attack is tracked down Britain must stand firm against any blackmail of the sort that is being used against France? Every effort must be made to keep potential terrorists out of Britain and to throw out provocateurs who are already here. Britain's streets must not be allowed to become a battleground for murderous factions, and Britain must play her part in reducing tension in what is today the world's most dangerous flash point.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: May I begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new-found role in foreign affairs? I also welcome the support that he has given to the part played by the Government in the Security Council yesterday. I welcome, too, the vigour with which he expressed his support for appropriate measures against terrorism in all its manifestations in this country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will look forward to receiving that support from him and his hon. Friends on every appropriate occasion.
It is clearly premature at this stage to give any judgment about the timing of further measures and further consideration because they depend on the progress that is made by the Secretary-General in the days and weeks ahead. The right hon. Gentleman may be assured, however, that Her Majesty's Government already refuse to sell defence equipment to either side if suet equipment would significantly enhance capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. That position is firmly upheld and widely respected by other countries around the world. It is recognised as probably being contrary to Britain's economic and commercial interests, but it is undoubtedly morally right. On that basis, I made plain yesterday that we should be willing — if that was judged right — to support a United Nations embargo on arms sales to either party to the dispute if that was thought necessary.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the arms procurement office is kept under the closest possible scrutiny, and its status—not only for compliance with the present state of the law and the present ban — will remain under close scrutiny in the light of changing events.
As regards other vessels in the Gulf, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that not only are United States and British vessels there, but French and Soviet vessels are, too—I think that there are some minesweepers, a frigate and some trawlers. They are all there upholding the vital principle of freedom of navigation.
There is no question of denouncing United States activity for adventurism or anything else, although the phrase, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, did not surprise me. Each country is making its own contribution to upholding the principle of freedom of navigation. The United States has responded today to the Kuwaiti request. Britain has deployed the Armilla patrol since 1980, and, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday said that our ships are maintaining a non-provocative low profile presence. Our forces in the Gulf have the ability to defend themselves if they are attacked, and they have instructions to do just that. In other words, their role is self-defensive in support of British ships and non-provocative.
With regard to the suggestion about a United Nations naval presence, that would raise a number of very substantial complications. So far it has not been canvassed or suggested in the course of the proceedings in the Security Council, but, of course, it is not excluded from the range of possibilities.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while the Iran-Iraq war poses the most immediate and serious threat in terms of an escalation of war and that, therefore, while this resolution is much to be welcomed, the whole area continues basically to be destabilised by the Arab-Israeli conflict? Will he now use every endeavour to bring about a settlement in that long-standing and apparently permanent dispute?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the wider although distinct conflict that has caused us so much anxiety for so many years—the conflict between the Arab and Israeli sides. I remind him that we firmly believe that an international conference is the most practical way forward to the negotiations that are necessary between the parties directly concerned. That was fully discussed last week between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan, and I discussed it again yesterday with Secretary of State Shultz. We have made plain our view about progress in that direction. We hope that the United States will take the lead in exploring the way forward to direct negotiations between the parties. It is clear that the next step will depend in large part on agreement within the Israeli Government about an approach to the international conference.

Dr. David Owen: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the Western diplomacy that has made it possible to involve the Soviet Union and China in the Security Council. Has he seen Mr. Gorbachev's statement of only a few hours ago in which he says that he is ready for discussions in any format and to undertake superpower action for peace in this area? In the light of that, and in the light of the British decision to have a non-provocative low profile naval presence in the Gulf, will the United Kingdom make representations to

the United States to take very seriously the Soviet concerns about the United States's build-up of naval vessels? That would give a little more opportunity for the Security Council's resolution and the Secretary-General's initiative to take effect.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he expressed in his opening remarks. Like each of the other countries providing some measure of naval protection in the Gulf, the United States is well aware of the dangers of confrontation in the current tense situation. It joins with us in the terms of the resolution in urging restraint and caution on all nations.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the steps that we have been able to take to promote closer co-operation among the five permanent members. It is important for that kind of consultation and co-operation to continue and not for it to be confined to the five permanent members.

Mr. Michael Latham: I welcome the resolution, but will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is far from the first Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in this war? Since the initial reaction of the Iranians was not very good as they did not attend the debate at all and condemned it, and since both countries are led by extremists, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the two superpowers in particular will do everything possible by diplomatic means to bring pressure on the two leaders of those countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend that this resolution by no means represents a solution to the problem. Even so, it is right to say that previous resolutions have been accepted by Iraq, provided that they are taken as a basis for producing a comprehensive settlement. I trust that Iraq will abide by the new resolution. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for us to continue to urge Iran to respond positively to this new step. I can understand why my hon. Friend may have some doubt about the likely effectiveness of what is taking place.
It is important to remind the House that this is a formidable new step. The resolution is even-handed between Iran and Iraq and has the backing not only of East and West alike but of the non-aligned countries, and includes all five permanent members of that group on the Security Council. It carries the prospect of a further resolution if necessary to enforce it. In my judgment, it represents the best available springboard so far for peace in the area.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the complexity of the issue in relation to the fact that, while he is trying to achieve cooperation within the United Nations, it seems increasingly difficult to achieve co-operation between the four powers with naval vessels in the Gulf, especially on rules of engagement? Without disclosing anything confidential, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there have been any discussions between ourselves and the United States with regard to determining agreement on rules of engagement and the escort of merchant vessels through the Gulf? In addition, what, if any, additional facilities have the United States asked for in relation to the base on Diego Garcia?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I preface my remarks with the observation that there are a number of matters which it is customary not to discuss in detail. For example, it is not customary to discuss the rules of engagement in detail. However, the presence of the Armilla patrol is intended to be non-provocative and de-escalatory. Its position is constantly reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. The United States Administration are of course well aware of the presence of other naval forces in the area and of the dangers of confrontation in the current tense situation. We keep in close touch with other naval forces in the area, but there is no question of any formal integration.

Sir Ian Lloyd: As the ability of both Iran and Iraq to finance their massive imports of arms is substantially, if not wholly, dependent on their ability to export oil, has the Security Council considered an embargo on the export of oil from those two countries? That would be by far the quickest and most effective way of bringing the war to a halt.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that my hon. Friend is more frequently to be found among the ranks of those drawing attention to the difficulties, if not the improprieties, of embargos of that kind. In fact, the discussions in the Security Council, so far as this point has been discussed, have concentrated on the importance of an arms embargo as possibly the most effective measure.

Mr. A. J. Beith: While the resolution is very welcome, does not the Foreign Secretary recognise that its effectiveness will require not just an arms embargo but a serious attempt to deal with the massive arms trade which is being carried out under his very nose in the city of Westminster at a time when it is reckoned that there may be as many as 500 arms dealers in London?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also consider the fact that the protection of merchant shipping is an international issue, and should we not now consider ways of using the United Nations flag in that role of protection?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's second point, as I have said, raises a formidable range of difficulties and it has been recognised in the past to do so. It has not therefore been the subject of discussion or consideration in the proceedings in the United Nations. That is why a number of different national forces are playing the parts that they are playing. However, it is not excluded from further consideration.
With regard to activities within this country, the law is enforced in this country. The organisation of transactions in arms sales is not illegal unless the goods concerned are imported into or exported from the United Kingdom in breach of British law. Any rumours or suggestions of breaches of the law in that respect have been investigated and have not been substantiated. Any evidence of illegal activity would be investigated most thoroughly by the appropriate authority.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As Iran has a vested interest in keeping the gulf shipping lanes open and peaceful to operate its terminal at Kharg Island and elsewhere, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the somewhat unhappy juxtaposition of the Irangate hearings and the much heralded reflagging of Kuwaiti ships tends to give the impression to the world that Iran will be the most likely aggressor in the Gulf when history

has proved that that is completely incorrect" To ensure that the resolution is given a fair wind, will lie therefore make it crystal clear that apportioning blame in the Gulf about the starting of that war is not possible and that the British Government will remain completely even-handed in any dealings they have with any of the combatants?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position is ore of even-handedness without any discrimination between the two parties in relation to our ban on arms sales and in every other respect. One of the components of the Security Council resolution provides for the possibility of an inquiry into the blame for the initiation of the conflict, since that matter has often been pressed by Iran. Beyond that, we press strongly the need for a cessation of all attacks on shipping both ways by both sides. In our judgment, they are the most potentially dangerous components of the present scene. We believe that Iran and Iraq should refrain from any such attacks.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not rather late in the day for the Foreign Secretary to discover that the sales of arms to other countries is immoral? Does he recall that any time any Opposition Member makes that point he is met by a clamour from Conservative Back Benchers about the jobs that would be lost in this country if we were to take such a moral stand? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman sure that the Prime Minister will satisfy herself that every step along the way towards this peace solution will be verifiable, in view of what we have heard from Colonel North and others in the United States, when it seemed that even the President was not quite sure what was going on with regard to the supply of arms to Iran?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman in the long exploratory disquisition at the end of his last sentence. As for this conflict, our policy is well known. The guidelines were set out by me in the House on 29 October 1985. We refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which will significantly enhance the capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Those rules are scrupulously implemented. They will remain in force whether or not there is a United Nations embargo. Our defence sales policy is a direct result of our impartiality in the conflict.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about the possibility of an international conference on Arab-Israel relations. When does he see that taking place? Does Israel have a veto over it? If it does, what action does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the international community taking to make sure that this gross injustice is rapidly brought to a conclusion?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is straying rather far from the point of my original statement. We believe that an international conference represents the most practical way forward for negotiations between the parties concerned. We have been pressing the case for progress towards such a conference. We have been pressing our partners, and indeed everyone we can legitimately persuade, to press their case. We can do no more than that.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Because of the appalling implications of an Iranian victory in terms of the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, about which some of us have been warning for many years, why was the right


hon. and learned Gentleman not involved in launching such an initiative some years ago, particularly in view of the enormous boost that this conflict has given to the international arms trade? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, if things get risky or go wrong in the Gulf, he will take the decision as to what Britain's reaction is and that it will not be taken by the Prime Minister under Reagan's instructions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who often poses rather worthwhile questions, should have allowed himself to be led down the path of fantasy at the end of his question. Her Majesty's Government's policy will be determined by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with the ordinary conventions.
As for the hon. Gentleman's underlying question, he will be aware that we have supported a number of previous resolutions by the United Nations to try to bring the conflict to an end. It was our judgment, which is why we set the process in hand last autumn, that we needed to try to mobilise a resolution carrying in its initiation the support of all permanent members and carrying in its conclusion the support of all members of the Security council, just as we were able to secure it yesterday. That is an important addition to everything that has gone before.

Sir John Farr: Although it is important that the Royal Navy should adopt a non-aggressive, low profile role in the Gulf, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that should any Royal Navy vessels or any of the vessels that it is escorting be attacked they will in no way be inhibited in or prevented from deploying all their defensive weapons systems to the full?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it plain that the Royal naval ships there are provided with self-defence equipment relevant to the full range of threats in the region. We have every confidence in their being able to defend themselves on that basis.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: If the Foreign Secretary ponders the bellicose remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), will he also bear in mind, and impress on our American friends, that the deployment of larger naval forces in the Gulf, with all the attendant risks that something will go wrong—as it sometimes has, even when adventurism has not been involved—will leave the Prime Minister and the President with little option but to deploy even bigger fleets, with no guarantee that the conflict will not become open-ended?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We start from the position that it is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation. That is why, in addition to American, French and British ships, there are Soviet Union ships — three mine-sweepers, a frigate and some trawlers — present for exactly the same purpose: to defend shipping in the Gulf. Each country is making its own contribution to upholding that principle. The hazard arises from the continuation of attacks on shipping. For that reason, the Security Council resolution calls for a ceasefire, and we hope that it will lead

to a cessation of such attacks. The best contribution to the reduction of tension would be a cessation of attacks on shipping by both sides.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm reports that the Government of Kuwait have made a formal request to Britain to have some of their vessels reflagged under our flag? What will be our policy in response to such a request; and, if it is granted will my right hon. and learned Friend note that to honour it will almost certainly require an increased naval presence, which it will be difficult to see as de-escalatory?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That would not be an intergovernmental matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) informed the Kuwaiti Deputy Foreign Minister of that this morning. If there were any question of registering or re-registering a Kuwaiti or any other ship, it would be a purely commercial and procedural arrangement, to be carried out in accordance with the existing law on the British shipping register. There is no need for a formal decision by the Government.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Do not the carefully-worded phrases that the Secretary of State has used time and again mean that we would consider selling some sort of arms to Iran? What sort of arms are so innocuous that that would be allowable?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the position of private arms dealers in the United Kingdom. Would the British Government at least stop the export of licences for arms bought or procured in this country to Iran or Iraq?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the second question is that the position is exactly as I have stated. Our law applies to prohibit any illegal transactions in connection with the import or export of arms to or from the United Kingdom. Any allegations of infringements of that kind would be immediately investigated.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that our defence sales policy in regard to both sides in the conflict has existed for a long time. It is absolutely plain and without qualification. We will refuse to sell defence equipment that will significantly enhance the capability of either side, to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Those rules are scrupulously implemented. They are the result of total impartiality, and are well understood and widely appreciated by the wider international community. That is why our prospective support for an arms embargo is so widely respected. It is well understood and clearly founded.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must have regard for the subsequent business on the Order Paper, which is heavy today. I shall call those hon, Gentlemen who have been standing regularly.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It must be the wish of the House to try to bring an end to the war, which has claimed over 1 million casualties. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend be cautious about endorsing a worldwide arms embargo without that embargo being watertight? It may be our definition of our neutrality to supply weapons to neither side, but other countries define theirs as providing both sides with weapons, and they may


continue to do so, in defiance of United Nations resolutions. If they supply weapons, including chemical weapons, in secrecy, it may make the position even worse.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the practical difficulties of any embargo, including an arms embargo. I have described the United Kingdom's policy, which proscribes arms sales to either side and has done so for a long time. The possibility of an arms embargo being imposed by the United Nations would have to be considered against whichever of the parties failed to respond to the resolution that we passed yesterday. It has not yet been decided; it is for consideration. It would be effective only if it were to be universally and effectively supported. Therefore, the matter has to be very carefully considered.
If the House wants us to play an effective part in trying to bring this conflict to a conclusion, a worldwide United Nations enforced arms embargo against the non-complying party must be a legitimate weapon of the international community.

Mr. Bruce George: The Secretary of State assured the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that our ships would be able to protect themselves. Is he prepared to give an assurance that the weapons mix on our ships will he sufficient for them to defend British merchant shipping, which I understand is the purpose of the Armilla patrol? Is he able to say what the Armilla patrol is up to? There are not enough ships to provide convoying. What will be the relationship between the three ships on patrol and British merchant shipping that is transiting the Gulf area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not prepared to give detailed material about that. The Armilla patrol provides cover for British shipping when it is in the relevant area. It has recently been the subject of some reinforcement and its resources are constantly reviewed. Inevitably some risk is involved in any operation of this kind. All I can say is what I have already said: I offer to the hon. Gentleman the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the ships are provided with self-defence equipment that is relevant to the full range of threats in the region.

Mr. Derek Conway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that a company that manufactures main battle tank and other personnel carrier engines in my Shrewsbury constituency has for the last three or four years been prevented from supplying the re-engining of both Soviet tanks for Iran and also tank transporters? That is positive evidence of the Government's determined stand. I support and endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's strong principle, but it is important for all hon. Members to appreciate the definite effects that this has on our economy and on jobs. Wise words have to be paid for by many of our constituents.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Our even-handed and firm enforcement of our arms embargo, as I have described it, involves the probable loss to British industry of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of business. It brings us no thanks from either side in the conflict, but we have no doubt that it is appreciated—and rightly so—by the wider international community.

Mr. David Winnick: I recognise that the major responsibility for the present crisis undoubtedly lies with the unsavoury régime in Iran, but, to return to an earlier theme, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether there is absolute need for all the powers, particularly the United States, to exercise the greatest self-restraint, without which the crisis could escalate? That would play right into the hands of the leaders of Iran and break the international consensus that, fortunately, was achieved last night by the United Nations Security Council resolution.
Bearing in mind that we are about to enter a very long recess, if the crisis were to escalate, may we have a guarantee from the Foreign Secretary that the House would be recalled at the earliest possible opportunity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, any question of that kind would undoubtedly fall for consideration through the usual channels, and by the Leader of the House. The United States, together with all the other nations that were represented yesterday, is well aware of the dangers of confrontation in the current situation. That is why the resolution
calls upon all other states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refain from any act which may lead to further escalation and a widening of the conflict and thus to facilitate the implementation of the present resolution.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Although I am aware of the difficulties that lie ahead, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that the House may be in danger of losing sight of what has been achieved? With the help and leadership of the United Kingdom, the United Nations has at last come to the united and unanimous resolution to start to take a grip on what for a long time has been an area of international anarchy. At last, with Britain's leadership, the international community is now taking a firm lead and hold on trying to resolve this very difficult question.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is right to say that the resolution that we supported yesterday presents a unique opportunity to end this uniquely horrible war. It is the longest major conflict of the century. The most effective step that would unwind tension immediately would be for both Iran and Iraq to refrain from attacking shipping on either side.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If I could nag back to the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), may I ask who makes the judgment—and on what criteria do they make it—as to what equipment should not be sold because it enhances the capability? I follow the Foreign Secretary's own wording. Are there contracts outstanding? What equipment is innocuous?
What is the position about the end-user certificate system when the most sophisticated weapons, we understand, can be bought in the bazaar at Peshawar? Has not the time come for an investigation into the end-user certificate system? What does the Foreign Secretary mean when he says that these exports can be investigated by "the appropriate authority"? Who is the appropriate authority?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The control of the export or import of arms is conducted by the Government through their normal agencies—the licensing procedure, as laid down


by statute. The appropriate authority in the first instance for the enforcement of that legislation is Customs and Excise.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding our good example, it seems to be abundantly clear that both combatants are finding it all too easy to obtain arms, presumably from those who supported the resolution yesterday. Does this not mean that there will be very little chance of an arms embargo? What can we do to ensure that that happens?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is clear that arms supplies are still reaching the combatants because there is not yet in force an international arms embargo. I have been describing our policy on arms sales to either side. The prospect of a mandatory, worldwide arms embargo is something that would have to be considered at a later stage. Then it would be most important that it should be properly complied with.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the question of reflagging? In reply to a question from me on 17 July, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that the reflagging of merchant shipping was a commercial and administrative matter. Surely the Foreign Secretary must understand that when there is any application for reflagging there are also very important political and military considerations that have to be taken into account.
Has there been an application from Kuwait or any of the other Gulf states for reflagging, using British flags? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, if an application is received, it will be refused? If he cannot give that assurance, will he at least assure the House that in a matter of such military and political importance Government consideration will be given precedence over commercial and administrative considerations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can only repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said earlier: any registering or chartering of vessels would be a purely commercial, procedural or administrative arrangement which would not call for a formal decision by the British Government.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Do the Government believe that it is in the British national interest to assert the so-called principle of free navigation wherever a problem arises? Do we have a role as world policemen?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have a role, in regard to the interests of Britain as a power with a substantial mercantile trade throughout the world, in upholding the principle and securing its application wherever we sensibly can for the benefit of the British merchant marine.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What contracts are outstanding? Is there any evidence that the Iranians or Iraqis have developed or are developing a nuclear military capacity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know what contracts the hon. Gentleman is asking about. Even if I did, I would not be able to answer the question, nor should I do so.

Mr. Kaufman: In response to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a reflagging operation involving Britain and Kuwait was purely commercial arrangement. However, there are defence implications. Therefore, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying, that, if there were a purely commercial reflagging arrangement between British and Kuwaiti interests, the Royal Navy and British foreign policy would be dragged along behind such a private commercial arrangement? If so, the consequences could be grave and incalculable.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is taking the matter too far. The question of re-registering or chartering a vessel in a different form is, as it has long been, a purely commercial and procedural arrangement in respect of which there is a wide range of legal and other implications that must be complied with.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously was not here when I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising regularly.

Channel Tunnel Bill

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, he dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed.
This is the first time for many years that I have had an opportunity to take part in a Channel tunnel debate. When the Channel tunnel was last counselled by Mr. Anthony Crosland I took part in the debate and spoke for the Opposition, who were aghast at his decision. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may have shared my view, although I cannot remember whether he was here at that time.

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall put the Secretary of State out of his misery. It is nothing to do with the debate, but on that occasion in 1974 I was a Teller for those who wished to continue with the scheme.

Mr. Channon: I was proud to be counted by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion.
The purpose of the motion is to give effect to the will of this House, which has been expressed on other occasions, and to enable the House to consider later today the Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in respect of the road access arrangements to the Folkestone terminal area.
I shall set out the essential procedural background. As the House knows, the Channel Tunnel Bill is a hybrid Bill and, like any other hybrid Bill, it is expected to meet, insofar as it affects private rights, certain requirements of the House relating to private business, that are set out in the Standing Orders for Private Business. These cover important matters, such as giving notice to parties affected and placing advertisements in newspapers.
Deadlines are set which are based on an annual cycle for presentation and deposit of Private Bills. In particular, those who are seeking to promote a Private Bill must deposit the Bill in the Private Bill Office on or before 27 November in the Session concerned.
With regard to the Channel Tunnel Bill it will be within the memory of the House that it was quite impossible to introduce the Bill by November 1985, which was before the Eurotunnel project had been selected by the Government. Accordingly, after the Examiners had reported that being out of time was the only respect in which Standing Orders had not been complied with, the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from Standing Orders in respect of the Bill on 3 June 1986.
Amendments affecting private rights, which are sometimes referred to as "rehybridising" amendments— that is not the most elegant word in the English language — are also, like a hybrid Bill, subject to certain of the Private Business Standing Orders. There is, therefore, a technical breach of such Standing Orders if the amendments are tabled out of time. Clearly, however, if the Bill is introduced out of time, the amendments must fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. It is the Government's submission that the House should dispense with Standing Orders in respect of these amendments in

exactly the same way as it did for the Bill. However, before inviting the House to approve the procedural motion, I shall refer to the substance of these amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to alter the arrangements for the access roads to the Folkestone terminal site. This matter first came before the House on 17 July 1986, when my hon. Friend the Minister explained that a number of bodies and individuals had petitioned the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Fletcher, in favour of revised arrangements which would take much less land and would not drive a new road between the villages of Newington and Peene.
The petitioners who were seeking the change included the Shepway district council and the Kent county council. All those who were speaking on that occasion were in favour of the change. Accordingly, the Select Committee was instructed to consider alternative arrangements.
For their part the Government, as promoters of the Bill, issued the necessary notices and made the necessary deposits to conform with Standing Orders, except for being out of time. A new deadline was set for petitioners who were adversely affected by the change, and the Select Committee considered the proposed amendments on 21 October.
The House will recall that in that event the Committee, on the basis of evidence not only from a small number of petitioners who would be adversely affected by the change but also from Eurotunnel about operational implications, decided against making the change. At a later late a new package was put together which was known as the "joint southern access", which made use of some, but not all, of the previously proposed amendments, and therefore raised. no new requirements in relation to Standing Orders. Those revised arrangements received strong support in the Standing Committee and, subsequently, after the petitioners affected had had an opportunity to petition the other place, they found favour with the Select Committee and the Bill was amended accordingly.
The House will recall that last week the House decided to refer these amendments to the Examiners. Subsequently, the Examiners reported that the applicable Standing Orders had been complied with in all respects, except for being out of time. On Friday, however, the Standing Orders Committee decided not to give dispensation.
The Standing Orders Committee is not required to give reasons for its decision, and it is not for me to speculate on them. The Government and I believe that the issue is straightforward. The amendments have very widespread support, although the decision of substance as to whether or not they should be made is one for later today. The effect of the motion, if the House carries it, is simply to enable the House to make these changes. It was impossible for the amendments to be introduced without being given out of time, and I therefore submit that dispensation should accordingly be given.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual, is it not, when a Committee of the House makes a recommendation to the House, for its Chairman not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and report to the House the reasons why it came to the decision that it did? We are in a difficult position, because it is traditional for the Chairman of Ways and Means to be Chairman of the Committee. I understand, to use the old legal phrase, that he is neither mute of malice nor mute


of God, but one might say mute of office. That being the case, will you advise us who will speak on behalf of the Committee, which is chaired by your illustrious deputy, so that the House may know at first hand why the Committee gave the House the advice that it gave, which we are now being invited to reject?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Chairman of Ways and Means was the Chairman of the Committee, but this is by no means an unprecedented motion before the House. Although the Chairman may not be able to give his reasons, there are hon. Members who may wish to speak who were members of that Committee. Therefore, I do not think that that point will go by default.

Mr. Peter Snape: Two matters arise directly from the motion before the House. The first concerns the rights of the House and the second concerns the rights of individuals who are affected by the project. The Secretary of State, as is his right, did not spend much time on the former and did not mention the latter at all. I propose to spend a few minutes on the former and rather longer on the latter because, regardless of the fact that the debate is being held in what is regarded as prime time, the rights of an individual petitioner to this House or another place ought to be fully debated and discussed. Where those rights have not been upheld by this House or another place, they should be fully debated at this, the last opportunity to so debate them before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
To listen to the Secretary of State one would think that the decision recommended by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July that the Standing Order relating to private business should be not dispensed with was the same as the decision taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 3 June 1986. I submit that it is important—

Sir John Farr: That is totally incorrect. In 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee was locked, with equal numbers on both sides and the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) declined to give a casting vote and asked the House to decide. It was quite different last Thursday. There was no question of equality of view. The Standing Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the proposal.

Mr. Snape: That goes to show the danger of giving way before one has completed a sentence. If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly he would have heard that I said that the implication of what the Secretary of State said appeared to be that the decisions were similar. My next sentence, which the hon. Gentleman pre-empted and, which like the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) robbed me of half my speech, was to say that no such conclusion should be drawn from the decision of the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) correctly points out, on 3 June 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee declined to come to a decision, whereas on 16 July the Standing

Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the dispensation that the Secretary of State seeks in this debate.
I do not know whether this motion sets any great precedent for the House. I leave such matters to the hon. Member for Tiverton who is invariably correct in his interpretation of the rules. I have no doubt that if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will enlighten both sides of the House on the custom, practice and precedent, particularly on recommendations from the Standing Orders Select Committee. That is all I wish to say about the rights of the House. We should not be misled into thinking that the two decisions that have been taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee are identical. The decision taken on 16 July this year is far more important and fundamental than that taken on 3 June 1986.
The second part of my remarks deals with the right of an individual petitioner, Mr. Barry Pattinson of Mill house, Ashford road, Newington. He owns one of a number of properties that will be affected more seriously by what the Secretary of State has correctly called the "joint southern access" rather than by the original scheme. Hon. Members on both sides who have taken an interest in the matter will be aware that the two proposed accesses to the Cheriton terminal were known respectively as WG1 and WG2. The Select Committee on the Channel tunnel, of which I was a Member, decided that the original proposal—WG1—was the proposal that the Committee would wish to see upheld. It was only subsequently that the alternative proposals were put forward for WG2 and were eventually accepted by the Select Committee in another place.
It is the Opposition's view that the rights of the petitioner to whom I have referred have not been fairly upheld or dealt with by reason of the fact that a decision taken by a Select Committee of this House has been overturned during a debate in the other place. I understand— I rely on Conservative Members who are more expert at procedural matters—that only the hybrid Bill procedure permits such an event to take place. On a private or public Bill, a decision arrived at in this House cannot be overturned in another place. I propose to spend a few moments detailing how and why the Opposition feel that Mr. Pattinson has been shabbily treated as a result of the decision in another place.
On 17 July 1986 the Government moved a motion in this House which had the effect of enabling the Select Committee to make the necessary amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in order to give effect to what were known then as the Shepway proposals. During the debate on the motion the Minister of State, Department of Transport said:
Although the revised option would reduce the amount of land taken in the terminal, it would involve the acquisition of certain land not currently included in the Bill. For that reason, it is necessary to serve notice on land owners and tenants and to publish advertisements in the normal way so that those affected can petition against the amendments to the Bill." —[Official Report, 17 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 1315.]
On 31 July 1986 the substituted plans in connection with the alternative access proposal were deposited in both Houses and at other offices as required by the Standing Orders. On 1 August 1986, notice to the landowners affected was served on the form required by the Standing Orders. I understand that notices were published in The


Times, Dover Express, East Kent News, Deal Express, Folkestone Herald and London Gazette, as required by the Standing Orders of the House.
The petitioner to whom I have referred lives at the Old Water Mill, Frogholt. He was formerly a tenant of the Department of the Environment but some years ago acquired the property from it and has expended considerable time and effort on restoring the mill, which dates from the 15th century.
As I said earlier, the original access proposals contained in the Bill — WG1 — did not involve the compulsory acquisition of Mr. Pattinson's property. However, the amendments that the Select Committee in this House were authorised to make would have necessitated the demolition of his home. Mr. Pattenson petitioned against the proposed alterations and was heard by the Select Committee on 21 October 1986. The Chairman of the Committee. Sir Alex Fletcher, told Mr. Pattinson that the Committee would be considering what view it might take of the alternative scheme within the next few weeks and told Mr. Pattinson that it was
a 50/50 shot at the moment as far as your home is concerned.
On 18 November 1986 the Select Committee issued its special report. In discussing road access to the Folkestone terminal, the Committee considered that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing the alternative scheme, WG2. Accordingly, as was said in paragraph 123, the Committee favoured the "operation-ally preferred" original scheme.
One would assume that, having heard all the evidence and decided to reject the proposed amendment, the Select Committee conveyed not only that message but perhaps a sense of relief to Mr. Pattinson who was told that his home was to be spared and that he could continue restoring and repairing the property. However, following subsequent discussion held between Eurotunnel, Kent county council and the Shepway district council, an alternative to the proposal that the Select Committee had rejected was formulated and it was decided by the Government, in the way outlined by the Secretary of State, to empower the Select Committee in another place to make the necessary amendments to the Bill.
As I said, the alternative scheme—the joint southern access — involves the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's property. On the instructions of the Department of Transport, a letter was sent to him on 18 February 1987 notifying him of the amendments set out in Shepway district council's petition to the House of Lords. He was informed that he had until 27 February to deposit a petition against the proposed amendments — amend-ments which, it must be remembered, had previously been rejected by a Select Committee of this House.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): No.

Mr. Snape: The Minister says, "No." But most fair-minded people would agree that, once the WG2 decision had been rejected, Mr. Pattinson and his property had been reprieved and that was that. I concede that there are a few differences between the amended scheme and the WG2 scheme, not favoured by the Committee. I make no complaints about the Minister's work behind the scenes to change the original decision of the Select Committee, and I well understand the reasons for it. However, the fact that

the decision was changed by the Select Committee in another place understandably leaves the petitioner with a sense of grievance.
I hope that we shall not have a detailed and convoluted argument about whether the scheme was identical to WG2; I accept that it was not. However, it had the same purpose, the reasons for which escaped the majority of us on the Select Committee. We took it that shuttle train passengers leaving Cheriton would have as their destination London or elsewhere. I shall choose my words carefully so as not to offend the Minister. because I understand the constraints of his office. We took it that those passengers would wish to head not for Folkestone but perhaps for more attractive parts of the country.
The alternative egress accepted by the Select Committee in the other place would head all the traffic leaving the terminal towards Folkestone initially. Passengers would have to change direction somewhere along the egress road if they wanted to head for London or other parts of the United Kingdom. That struck the Select Committee as somewhat illogical, which is why we made our original decision.
I hope that I have not strained your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the question of the petitioner on whose behalf I am making my plea. A letter was sent to Mr. Pattinson on 18 February notifying him of the amendments as set out in the petition to another place — the petition of Shepway district council. I understand that Mr. Pattinson was not served a formal notice to landowners as prescribed under the Standing Orders. I understand, too, that no notices of the amendments were published in the national or local press or in the London Gazette. As the House will understand, the rehashing of proposals that Mr. Pattinson thought had been swept away by the decision of a Select Committee of this House inevitably caused him a degree of personal mental stress, and I understand that he was compelled to seek medical treatment.
The amendments relating to the joint southern access scheme were accepted by the Select Committee in the other place according to its special report of 6 May 1987, in paragraphs 16 to 27. We believe that, in deciding whether the admitted non-compliance with the Standing Order relating to the amendments should be the subject of a dispensation, all the relevant circumstances should be considered to determine whether it is just and equitable to dispense with the observance of safeguards that are, in large measure, designed to protect individual rights.
Opposition Members believe—it is to be hoped that this is also the view of one or two Conservative Members —that the rights of individual petitioners are worthy of being upheld. They should be upheld despite the wishes of multi-billion pound corporations, district councils or hon. Members of this House, whatever their party views and wishes and regardless of whether they support or oppose the scheme.
If the Opposition's view prevails and the motion is defeated, what can be done? We could of course reconvene what is left of the Select Committee of this House. I am conscious of the fact that we shall be short of a Chairman because Sir Alex Fletcher was not re-elected at the last general election.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: He was a victim of the poll tax.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend reminds me that he was a victim of the poll tax. However, perhaps we should not chuckle too loudly, because we are also short of Nick Raynsford, although I do not know whether he was a victim of the poll tax.

Mr. Howard: He was a victim of rates.

Mr. Snape: I do not think that we should argue any more about who was a victim of what. Let us all be grateful that we are back, anyway.
The Select Committee will be short of a couple of its distinguished members, but I do not think that that should stop us. We might have some difficulty in recruiting the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) because I understand that he has been elevated to higher things. However, the rest of us could get together as we did last September, although not necessarily in the opulent surroundings of the hotel in Hythe where we spent a few balmy summer evenings. I suppose that I will have to speak for myself: I am quite prepared to meet in the not so balmy surroundings of this House, in spite of the fact that we will not be right royally entertained during the Recess as everywhere will be locked, bolted and barred.
On my serious point, it is surely for a Select Committee of this House to make decisions and recommendations. Its decisions, in particular, should not be overturned by the decision of a Select Committee in another place. We wish to uphold both the rights of the House and the rights of an individual petitioner. Therefore, I invite those Conservative Members who say a great deal about individuals' rights and freedoms to join the Opposition in voting against the motion.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your appearance in the Chair reminds me of the number of times on which it has been averred that Mr. Speaker, and therefore his Deputies, are not prevented from exercising their rights as Members of the House to address the House on any issue in debate if they so choose. We are in a serious position because, whereas normally the Chairman of a Select Committee which has made recommendations which are the subject of debate in the House would explain the reasons why the Committee came to the conclusion that it did, it is just possible that, despite your presence in the Chair, the House will be without that guidance. Individual Members of the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am one, are not authorised on behalf of their colleagues to speak for the Committee as opposed to themselves.
It so happened that I was in the minority that voted in favour of dispensation, but I did so in the knowledge that Mr. Pattinson would not necessarily be without the redress of being heard by the House before it came to a conclusion on the amendment which would deprive him of his home, rather than merely having been heard in a somewhat peremptory and discourteous manner by a Committee in another place.
The vehicle by which Mr. Pattinson's case could have been put to the House first-hand would have been a Government resolution giving the parliamentary agent acting for him permission to appear at the Bar of the House and there to make a statement in Mr. Pattinson's cause. That is the course which I pressed upon the Government. In practical terms, I know from experience

that when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he refused to allow such a motion to appear above the line on the Order Paper on the grounds that it was not his motion. In that case, it was my motion, but I take the same view on this occasion as I did then: a man should not be condemned unheard, as was the case then, or should not be deprived of his home, as in this case, without due process in this House.
Although I voted with the minority in the Standing Orders Committee for dispensation, in the knowledge that the Government could give that redress if such a motion was recommended to the House, I now discover that no such motion has been put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, my intention is to vote with the majority on that Committee, since the House is invited to dispense with the recommendation of that Committee, which never votes on party lines and which is a quasi-judicial Committee. That is why it is chaired by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than by a Back-Bench and non-office-holding Member of the House.
This is a serious issue. The only way in which Mr. Pattinson's case arrives before the Members of the House who will decide later in today's proceedings on the amendments recommended to us by another place is through a Member such as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) — who put the case accurately, fairly and not at inordinate length — or through other Members of the House. On this issue, I do not admit to there being two sides of the House. This issue is one for the House of Commons, not for a number of political parties. If the House of Commons is not precious of the rights of individuals subjected to this heavy-handed process, the House is selling itself short.
Parliamentary agents and the right to petition exist in the case of hybrid Bills precisely because they are dealing with the rights of an individual in the same way as a private Bill would. But by what can only be described as an extraordinary aberration of procedure—certainly one of which I was unaware—the Standing Orders for private Bill legislation which would have prevented Mr. Pattinson from finding himself in this position, if the peril to which he was exposed was one of a private Bill, do not apply to what is termed a hybrid Bill, which was defined by Mr. Speaker Hylton Foster—I think it was on 10 December 1962, was it not—as a public Bill which has certain characteristics of a private Bill. That is why part of this procedure is the private Bill procedure.
I have sat on the Select Committees which have reviewed public business Standing Orders. A Joint Committee of both Houses is presently reviewing private Bill procedure. No Select Committee which has reviewed the operation of Standing Orders in the House has addressed itself to the anomaly whereby, when it is acknowledged that the protection of the private Bill procedure should apply to someone deprived of his home in this way, by that anomaly, which I had not previously observed, he is deprived of the protection of petitioning and being represented before a Select Committee of both Houses on the measure which this House is being invited to pass today.
I will not accept arguments that Mr. Pattinson has already petitioned once in this House about the value of his homestead, the fact that it was in the Domesday Book and matters of that sort. He is entitled to put before the House, either in person or by parliamentary agent, his case on the issue which the House will decide later today and


which has never been before a Select Committee of this House. It has only been before the Select Committee in another place, and I do not believe that anyone who reads the Hansard of that Committee's proceedings will come to the judgment that he was treated other than in a shoddy and discourteous way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that he cannot say what he has just said, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think I said that if anyone read the record, he would come to that view, not that anyone who has read the record has come to that view.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He has the most amazing memory of anyone in the House since Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was standing at the Dispatch Box. I draw his attention to column 230 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee in another place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not compound what I regarded as the offence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who was reflecting adversely—as he must not do—on proceedings in another place. The hon. Member for Tiverton is as sharply aware as any Member in the House that he must not do that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I certainly would not claim that a Member who has read the transcript should express that view, but I am entitled to speculate that, in the hypothetical case, if a Member who has not yet read it wants to read it, he might come to that conclusion. I maintain that, by the thickness of something very thin indeed, I have just — only just — kept within the conventions of the House.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can emulate the hon. Gentleman in, I was about to say, the amount of thickness. However, I would be leading with my chin if I were to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker, without in any way condoning the description that you thought the hon. Gentleman had made of the Chairman of the Select Committee in another place, perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman what he would think about somebody—I will not use their exact words —trying the patience of the Committee too far or saying: "We cannot deal with every detail of negotiation. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel. Accept that with good grace and get on with it." If somebody said that, I would not describe that as the height of politeness.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A precedent that comes to mind that is an unhappy one is of the attempted compulsory purchase order served on Naboth on behalf of Ahab, his King. He was offered ample compensation. The point of principle was that he was not willing to accept it and do the deal. He came to rather a bad end. However, I do not want to be guilty of irrelevance, so I will return to the thrust of what I wish to say.
It is clear that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard in this House on the question that will be put from the Chair later in our proceedings, if the motion that we are now debating is carried. Members of the House are entitled to take a view about whether the proceedings in another place are an adequate substitute for the rights that Mr. Pattinson would have been at liberty to exercise to a Committee of

this House in the normal exercise of private Bill Standing Orders. That is the issue. The issue is not the purely technical one about advertisements at certain dates. Mr. Pattinson knew his home was threatened notwithstanding the absence of those advertisements and the fact that it was impossible, as the amendment only appeared at the point in time that it did, for it to have been deposited by the due date last November. If those were the only issues, I would have no compunction in recommending that Standing Orders be dispensed with. However, the issue is one of substance and will not go away. If we allow it to, we will have done the House a disservice for the future.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not correct that Mr. Pattinson did present petitions, was represented before and gave evidence to Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament, and that, in giving evidence, the access to which he takes exception was discussed in great detail?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The point I made was not that he has not been able to petition against a different amendment that is not to be put before the House today. That is not in dispute. What I assert — it cannot be denied, because it is true—is that the amendment that will be put to the House later today was inserted into the Bill in another place by a Select Committee there and has never been before any Committee of the House Therefore, it is undeniable that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard by any Committee of the House. He cannot have been heard by a Committee that has considered the amendment because, before later on today, that amendment will not have left another place and been transmitted for consideration to a Committee of the House. This is the issue. It is by fudging points of principle that dangerous precedents are created. It is immensely expensive and personally onerous to object even to a private. Bill going through Parliament. To object to a hybrid Bill that has the whole majesty and financial status of the Government behind it is even more oppressive. If we abandon this point of principle, we will have done something that those who come after us will be ashamed of.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has spoken with great fairness, persuasive power and knowledge on those matters, as all of us can testify, none so eagerly as myself because I can recall the advice that he has given to the House on a number of those occasions. It does; not mean to say that I think that he is always right. However, I believe that any Government would be foolish rot to listen to what he has to say on such matters, particularly when he has reconsidered his previous attitude. He is not altering the view that he took on the Standing Orders Committee, but he is prepared to come to the House and say that we should look afresh at the matter because we have fresh considerations before us. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has put his case, and the Government and the rest of the House would be most unwise not to take account of what he has said. particularly because something special is happening here this afternoon.
The House of Commons never has to apologise for taking time, even at this stage in the Session, to discuss a conflict between individual rights and what the


Government or other majorities may think are the rights of others. The most famous debates that have taken place in the House have been about individual rights, from ship money onwards. It is right that we should take up time, even when the Government have their own particular reasons for arranging the business for today in the way that they have.
I am also glad to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in these matters. The Channel tunnel is about the only subject on which I do not happen to agree with him. The only good reason for the Channel tunnel is that it is supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I differ from the whole project. The whole thing will come to a disastrous end anyhow. However, I am glad to be associated with my hon. Friend on the matter of principle that he, too, like the hon. Member for Tiverton, has insisted must take precedence over the other claims.

Mr. Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is not a question of the project being supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I quite often disagree with the views of that union. I take the somewhat old-fashioned view, which I hope that he will accept, that if a project is good for the railways, it is good for Britain.

Mr. Foot: I know the high altitude on which my hon. friend always approaches these questions of principle. He never strays from it. Therefore, I can understand that he sees the two things as absolutely indistinguishable. It is a good way to operate. I am merely emphasising that I am especially glad to be supporting the claim that he is making. I believe that it is a very important one for the House to take note of. We are insisting that individual rights be protected and not be swept aside, and particularly not swept aside just for the convenience of the Government at a particular moment in the Session.
Would the motion have been brought forward in this form if the House had not been rising at the end of the week? We might have had a little longer to proceed. The triviality of the reason that the Government have had to bring it forward is emphasised all the more. The Session is not coming to an end. There is no great immediate crisis that demands that this change in procedure should be forced upon us at this time. It is just to suit the convenience of the Government in the management of their business.
There are few things less reputable than a Government managing their business towards the end of a Session. We can see what they are doing. We only have to look at what they are up to. A discussion about members' salaries is coming up. We are not quite sure which way the Prime Minister's mind has turned on that, but that may become more evident when Members vote later on. The Government have said to themselves. "Let us not have it too early on. Let us arrange the business on that Tuesday so that we can have this kind of discussion beforehand. It would suit us to get rid of this awkward case." This motion has been brought forward in this form today to suit the Government's convenience, even though it inflicts such injury on individual rights—as we have heard. That is a disreputable thing for the Government to do.
The Secretary of State has just taken over a new post. I feel sorry for him in this case as it is not his name on the motion—it is nothing to do with him. He has never heard of it before in his life. He would not have dreamt of

coming before the House with such a proposition a few weeks ago. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, who has not been here at all from the beginning of the proceedings. We have the new Patronage Secretary, but he is a very poor substitute for the Leader of the House. Indeed, when I look at the whole business arranged for today and this motion, I see that it is a Chief Whip job forced on the House of Commons to suit the Government. The real Chief Whip who organised it— the Leader of the House — should have been here to move his own motion. Any previous Leader of the House would have done so. I once took the view that, once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. I took that view about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) but maybe I was wrong about him. The right hon. Gentleman does not act like a Chief Whip. When we see the casual camaraderie in which he greets everyone in the House he is no longer acting like a Chief Whip. The Leader of the House should try to escape from his old habits. He should not try to force through a motion of this major character at this time of the day. The Government probably thought that nobody would notice or perhaps that there would be only three or four hon. Members in the House.
The House should give full credit to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who has fought on behalf of his constituents throughout the campaign so thoroughly and deliberately and who drew the attention of the House to this matter when the business was announced last Thursday. Not many others thought to do so, but even at that stage the Leader of the House thought that he might be able to get away without too much trouble.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a member of the Select Committee on Standing Orders — I do not seek to disparage my colleagues on that Committee—that the decision was taken, not because of the civil rights of Mr. Pattinson, but because the majority of those on that Committee were pathologically anti-Common Market and anti-Channel tunnel. Mr. Pattinson's interests are, in my view, only peripheral to what occurred in that Committee.

Mr. Foot: We all know the state of cool, deliberate, uncalculated equanimity with which the hon. Gentleman approaches every issue. In the light of that, I would not accept immediately his judgment upon his fellow Committee members. I dare say that they were in fuller possession of their faculties than he was when the recommendations were going through.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the normal procedures of the House should be accepted. If they are to be broken, they can be broken only on absolutely first-class grounds and when the case has been fully made by those responsible. The case has not been fully made by the Secretary of State. He is not responsible for it. We all know that he would not have dreamed of presenting a motion such as this only a few weeks ago. This motion has been devised by the new Leader of the House of Commons, who should have been here in order to present his case to the House. If individual rights are treated in such a scornful manner and are set aside, and the chief Minister responsible does not think that it is necessary for him to attend the House of Commons on the day that that happens, indeed it is not a good safeguard for the future and not a good augury for the way in which individual rights will be protected in years to come.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said, I hope that the House of Commons will vote on the issue of whether individual rights are protected. That does not mean to say that we shall pass judgment on the Committee. Indeed, the Committee has not had the chance to present its case. In so far as it has had such a chance, we are overturning the decision that was presented to the House on 16 July—only a few days ago. We are asked to believe that, in the last few days of the Parliament—between 16 July and 18 July— a great crisis arose and that, somehow, if the matter does not go forward, the Government and the machinery of government will be put into great difficulty, so we must be prepared to accept it. The Government will get into further and further difficulties with the Channel tunnel project. That may be the reason they want to rush it through.
The people with money are the ones who are pushing. They are the people to whom the Government listen. Certainly they are most of the people who have the most money. Of course huge amounts of state money are now involved in the Channel tunnel project. Unfortunately, that money will not be spent in my constituency, elsewhere in Wales, in Scotland, or in most parts of the country that are crying out for it.

Mr. Keith Speed: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the first two major contracts were placed in Glasgow and Leeds for the Channel Tunnel Group—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should check this matter before it goes any further. We are here to discuss not the merits or otherwise of the Channel tunnel, but the strict terms of the motion.

Mr. Foot: I was discussing the demerits of the Government's method of bringing it forward. In the proposition that they put before the House, they were persuaded by the pressures of getting the Channel Tunnel Bill through. Whatever we may think of its merits or demerits, I shall certainly be prepared at some other time, if I were in order, to argue how similar amounts of money could be much better invested in other projects that could bring many more jobs. That is not the matter that is to be discussed here. Why have the Government come forward and tried to rush through such a disreputable measure as this, at the fag end of a Session just before we depart for the summer recess? It is because money is at work. Money is saying to the Government, "If you do not get on with the Bill, we shall lose some of our money." That is not a proper reason for overriding individual rights or those of the House of Commons.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has a great sense of the traditions and practices of the House. I am not at all surprised that he has described this miserable little motion as a disreputable proceeding. He is quite right in sensing that the power of money lies behind the motion. Perhaps the power of money is connected even with the timing of the motion. Indeed, it may not be unconnected with one aspect of money that various suggestions seemed to float around the House earlier today to the effect that it might he helpful—I must admit that it is the first time it has been said — if, in the course of the Bill's proceedings, I were to make a long speech. That might not be unconnected with the need to postpone the exquisite

embarrassment of discussing our own pay in prime parliamentary time. I am sorry, not for the first time in the Channel Tunnel Bill proceedings, to have to disappoint the Treasury Bench. I shall make a short speech and, I hope, keep entirely in order and to the point.
Of course there are many good reasons for vigorously reiterating the arguments against the French benefit match, which the Channel tunnel project will be, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not permit that. Therefore, I shall concentrate entirely on the notion. It is a purely procedural motion; it is all about an issue of principle, and a thoroughly bad principle at that. Let us remember that the House has many Standing Orders. They are the rules that govern us and ensure fair play inside the House. Certain Standing Orders — the ones that are relevant to the motion—guarantee fair play for people outside the House. Those rules guarantee, for example, that an ordinary citizen, whose livelihood might be lost or whose home might be destroyed or purchased compul-sorarily as a result of legislation such as this Bill, would have due and proper notice served on him within an acceptable and clearly defined timetable.
In plain language, Standing Orders are the rules that protect the rights of the small man against the abuses of the legislative power. We even have a Committee to interpret the Standing Orders because they are so important and because of the way in which they have developed over the years. I understand that it is normal for all three Deputy Speakers to sit on the Select Committee on Standing Orders, as do several senior hon. Members who have procedural expertise, despite tie bizarre imputations that were cast by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
That Committee has a reputation for being impartial and non-partisan. It goes without saying that its findings are respected and that, until today, they are invariably honoured by the House.
The Select Committee on Standing Orders ruled that the Government had broken the Standing Orders and that no dispensation should be given to them. What did the Government do? In a sudden flurry of expediency, they jettisoned all pretence of making the traditions and principles of the House stand up and instead tabled this disreputable little motion. Let us face it, this motion aims to shoot the ref, to sack the umpires and to move the goalposts. We are being asked to reject Parliament's own rules of fair play which, in the case of these. Standing Orders, were designed to protect the rights of snail home-owners who would be disadvantaged by Eurotunnel's mega-scheme.
We are seeing the first flexing of the muscle of the elected dictatorship that a Government with a big majority can so easily turn into. We are seeing that muscle used to do a favour for the big foreign business men of Eurotunnel and, in the process, to do down a few ordinary Kentish people by overthrowing our own parliamentary rules. That is not an attractive proposition and it is in sharp contrast to all the fine words that were spoken at the outset of the Bill about giving the people of Kent fair treatment and a fair hearing.
I could quote many words, but I remind the House that the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said when speaking to the Franco-British Council on 14 May last year:


I firmly believe that it is necessary to allow the doubters and objectors the full panoply of Parliamentary opportunities and to respond to their objections whether they be personal, political or emotional with reasoned answers. Nor must we be seen to be stampeding the Bill through Parliament.
Surely those are words for eating.
Far from leaning over backwards to ensure fair play, this is the third major parliamentary occasion on which the Government have had to apologise, climb down or table a special motion to allow themselves to break their own rules and deny objectors their legitimate parliamentary rights.
The first occasion was on 3 June last year, after a tied vote in the Select Committee on Standing Orders. The issue then was whether Standing Orders had been broken, whether large numbers of petitioners had been denied their rights and whether many people had been stampeded by the Bill. The gut issue was that a number of notices had not been published by the due dates. One memorable example is that in a parliamentary answer a Minister from the Department of Transport said that the Department had placed a certain advertisement, on a certain date, in a newspaper called the Canterbury Times. The advertisement did not exist. It had not appeared on the stated date and the Canterbury Times had ceased publication in 1768. There were red faces all round. As a midnight compromise, the petitioning period was extended and as a result nearly 5,000 ordinary people put in petitions.
One would have thought that, after all that fuss and bother, the Department of Transport would have been careful not to deny petitioners their rights when the issue went to the other place. However, lo and behold, what did we find on the opening day of the hearings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill? On 2 March 1987, virtually the opening words of Lord Ampthill, the Chairman of the Committee, were:
The Committee have been most concerned to learn that despite public assurances to the contrary the Department of Transport did not intend to publicise the date 18 February, the day by which the Petitions had to be lodged, and that the Department was not induced to honour its undertaking until halfway through the Petitioning period … one is compelled to return to the leaflet which the Department put out before the proceedings in another place … there is a very clear undertaking made in that leaflet and the Department has reneged.
Mr. Fitzgerald, the Government's counsel, then said:
My Lord, I take your Lordship's point completely and apologise … So far as Petitioners or potential Petitioners have been disadvantaged, obviously I unreservedly apologise to them.
The Chairman then said:
Very well, Mr. Fitzgerald, we will not spend any more time on this one; we of course accept your apology but I think it is a matter which the Committee very greatly regrets.
One could not be much clearer than that. For the second time the Department of Transport was caught cheating in a particularly sneaky way, trying to deny petitioners their rights. It had to apologise and to grovel. After twice being caught out red-handed, one might have thought that the Department of Transport could not face another apology, another parliamentary debate or another "putting matters right" special motion.
However, they are procedural recidivists down there in Marsham street when it comes to denying people their rights and to breaking the rules. Here we are again, about to go into recess, about to discuss hon. Members' pay, and the Secretary of State comes along with a motion — I

sympathise with the Secretary of State for having to move the motion because it is nothing to do with him—the message of which is, "Whoops, sorry chaps, we've been caught cheating again."
The Department has only three excuses. One is that the big guns want the road that lies behind these amendments. It is true that Eurotunnel, the French, the Government, all hon. Members representing Kent constituencies and even the noisy little pom-pom from Thanet, South want the road. However, the big guns are no excuse when the small man is denied his rights. For almost the first time in such proceedings I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in his eloquent appeal in defence of the small man's rights.
The gentleman who was denied his rights—how good it is that we are spending so much time discussing them — was Mr. Barry Pattinson, whose house will be demolished as a result of the Bill. The history of Mr. Pattinson's experience is rather like that of a prisoner who is led to and from the scaffold so many times that in the end he does not know whether he will be reprieved or hanged. Under the original Bill, Mr. Pattinson's house was not to be demolished. Under the Government's proposals of July 1986, it was to be demolished. The Select Committee rejected those proposals by one vote. Mr. Pattinson was reprieved and told that his house was safe. The Standing Committee then heard a motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who proposed a clause that would have caused Mr. Pattinson's house to be demolished. However, in circumstances of great nocturnal confusion, the Government persuaded my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment. We then waited until the Lords' proposals were published in May 1987. Under them, Mr. Pattinson's house will be demolished.
Mr. Pattinson has been very badly treated. This time round, no notices were served on him about the new scheme telling him that he was again up for execution and that his house was again due for demolition. The spirit and letter of the Standing Orders were breached. No notices were served on him. Mr. Pattinson, poor man, has had a nervous breakdown or collapse of some kind. However, he was able to rush, virtually unprepared, to the House of Lords Select Committee, where he was given a hearing. I know that I am not allowed to comment on that hearing but perhaps I could develop a comment by simply quoting the words that were spoken. Mr. Pattinson was allowed to give evidence for about eight minutes. Then the Chairman came on rather strongly with these words:
It is no comfort to you but it is to the Committee that only five houses have to be knocked down as a result of this vast project of the terminal at Cheriton. But that does not do much for you personally but do recognise as I said earlier that the effects of the previous scheme for access to the terminal site would have had really very upsetting effects, a much more enormous upsetting effect on other people".
At that point, Mr. Pattinson's agent intervened to ask whether Mr. Pattinson could be given the help of a house agent in approaching Eurotunnel. The Chairman replied:
You must not try the patience of this Committee too far. We cannot deal with every detail of these negotiations. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel, accept that with good grace and get on with it.
Mr. Pattinson said:
If this Channel Tunnel does not get built, which is quite possible, it will not get built, may I ask that I am allowed to stay in my property or re-gain—
Mr. Pattinson was then interrupted again by the Chairman, who said:


We really cannot enter that one, I think we really must not enter any more on this subject. I would not work on the assumption the Channel Tunnel is not going to be built, Mr. Pattinson, it is.
Poor Mr. Pattinson tried to get in edgeways, but the Chairman said:
Go on, Mr. Pattinson, we really must move on to Mr. and Mrs. Fry now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) speculated that the Chairman's attitude might have been peremptory and discourteous, and the House can judge that for itself. However, I do not like to see the small man bullied in such a way. I think that the bullying is continuing now. The House of Commons is being made to vote down its own Standing Order so that Mr. Pattinson can be bullied into oblivion and his house can be demolished. It is pretty shameful for an institution founded, as we were, to preserve individual liberties, to go along with this.
Of course I accept that my hon. Friends mean well, but they spelt out their intention clearly last Thursday. They have got to get the Bill through by the Summer recess. Why? The answer is so that Eurotunnel can send in its various money men around the world to the souks of Arabia, the geisha houses of Tokyo, the banking parlours of Libya and Africa and the Bourse of Paris to pass the hat round.
We should not let money rule this thing. Parliament should not go along with the steamroller money men. Parliament should stick to its traditions. Parliament should vote the motion down, which is rightly gravely embarrassing to the Government, and a good thing too.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), about the motion which proposes that Standing Orders relating to private business be dispensed with. I echo what he said about there being two main issues involved—first, the rights of this House and, secondly, the rights of individuals. It has been evident throughout the passage of the Bill that the powers of the House to scrutinise what is done in transport in relation to this project have been severely curtailed. I would like to give you, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some examples of that, as I am sure you would not wish me to come to the House with merely unsubstantiated allegations.
Ministers have claimed on key issues, to which the House and the Committee have the right to answers, that these are matters for British Rail. It is no surprise that I am especially concerned about the proposal for the overwhelming bulk of the traffic generated by the Channel fixed link to exit at the Waterloo station terminus.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I must tell him that what he is saying is not relevant to the motion and that he must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that there are amendments concerning that matter which we shall consider later. I am glad that Mr. Speaker has been able to select amendments which I have tabled. I should like, however, to raise a procedural matter concerning the handling of questions put to Ministers by hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to the motion before the House, which is concerned with the decision of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and whether the Standing Orders ought to be waived in respect of the Lords' amendments. He must address himself to that.

Mr. Holland: I am anxious that we should not suspend the Standing Orders, and that we should be able to give further consideration to the issues raised by the Lords amendments, because we do not have adequate answers to a range of questions concerning them. For example, time and again on the issues raised by the amendments, concerning the dispersal of traffic and other matters which we shall be considering later today, I have pt t questions to Ministers and have been palmed off because they said they were not prepared to answer them, as they are matters for British Rail.
An illustration that is relevant to the dispersal clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would rather that the hon. Gentleman did not seek to give illustrations on matters that are not relevant to the motion before the House. We may consider the Lords amendments later today and the matters to which he is referring may be relevant then. However, they are certainly not relevant now.

Mr. Holland: The proposal before us is that, in effect, we should suspend Standing Orders and therefore the House would be unable to consider further the issues raised in Committee.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule me out of order for raising some of those individual issues, it will be extremely difficult for me to make a case against the suspension of Standing Orders. If I may submit — of course I am subject to your guidance—there is a good deal of room for the expression of argument concerning individual cases. Such arguments have already been made by both sides of the House.
We should consider the issues that were raised in the Lords during the debate on the Lords amendments, on Report and on Third Reading. Columns 876 and 1160 of the Lords proceedings show that there is strong support for Customs inspection being undertaken on the trains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his line of argument is not relevant to the motion before the House. Perhaps he might hold his arguments to see whether he will have the chance to deploy them when we reach the Lords amendments later in our proceedings.

Mr. Holland: I shall certainly do that, and I might not be as brief as some Conservative Members have been. However, that depends on whether or not I am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The rights of individuals to submit evidence to the Committee of this House and the Committee of the other place have been severely curtailed. That is true not just for the individual case concerning the person whose house may or may not be demolished, depending on what is agreed at a particular stage of this Bill, and therefore whose personal future is in jeopardy, but also in other respects. A range of questions have been put in Committee, but either they have been ruled out of order


by the Chairs of those Committees or, when it came to those relating to British Rail, they have received no adequate answer.
Let us consider the simple, basic question of how much traffic will be generated by the tunnel fixed link. It is intolerable that the answers given display utterly varying orders of magnitude. The Minister gave an answer to a question that I put down on Monday and estimated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is disregarding the advice I have already given to him. If he persists I must ask him to resume his seat. Either the hon. Gentleman addresses the motion before the House, which he is not doing at the moment, or he resumes his seat.

Mr. Holland: There are a whole range of issues concerning this Bill and I make no apology to the House for raising those concerning my constituency. It has not been possible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with or without apology, is out of order if he seeks to persist in raising the matters that concern his constituency, but do not concern the motion before the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman can confine his remarks to the motion before the House I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Holland: With such active co-operation from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise one point if I may gain your tolerance. The Lords Committee has been unable to deal adequately with the range of issues in the Bill that affect both individuals and community groups. Certainly we shall be able to address some of those issues later today on some of the other amendments. However, we shall he unable to raise those matters in an adequate manner because some of the most basic figuring concerning the traffic to be generated by the Channel fixed link is still unclear. Widely varying estimates have been given.
I support what has been said by some Conservative Members with regard to the Eurotunnel figures. Those figures are high because it wants support for its flotation and therefore wants to get finance for the project. British Rail's estimated figure is much lower. The feasibility of the higher figure of traffic being sustained by a single terminus—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. If I allowed the debate to continue along these lines, we would have a wide debate about the Channel tunnel in general.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Hon. Members may be relieved to hear that I shall be brief. This is the first wedding anniversary that I have been able to spend in this country and I shall be in trouble with a higher authority if I speak for long.
Unlike the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) I have no objection to any of the amendments themselves but, as you have just reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not debating them. We are discussing a procedural motion that deals with the suspension of the statutory protections that the House affords to the people of this country. The motion is designed to enable a powerful, potentially monopolistic organisation to ease its way past the individual liberties that the House is here to protect.
This is an unseemly motion, papering over an unsound project. It is a feature of quasi-monopolistic, powerful bodies, of the sort that Eurotunnel will no doubt become, that, again and again, they have to come to the House and to other bodies to ask for the rules to be changed so that they can carry on with their business. I suspect that this will not be the last time that a special dispensation is requested. Many of us fought proudly under the Conservative banner, and continue to do so, because we believe that the Conservative party supremely stands for the protection of individual liberties in areas as far removed from the motion as the sale of council houses and the break-up of the monopoly of the trades unions. So it is sad to find that, in a matter such as this, the Government appear at both levels to be moving against individual rights. That is demonstrated by the measure before us and by the underlying fact that we shall be setting up this quango, for want of a better word.
During discussion of the last procedural motion on the Channel tunnel, I reported the deep unhappiness of many of my constituents about the lack of procedures that has obtained in these matters. I have noted the number of people who have told me that they would have liked to make their representations heard but could not do so for reasons that have already been outlined at length by previous speakers. Such people feel justified fears that if their normal rights, as upheld by the House, are suspended, more may follow. Their fears extend to things in the real world outside the Chamber—to the wave of ribbon development that is currently spreading across the garden of England, as it once was.
I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be out of order for me to comment on specific issues relating to the underlying effects that the Channel tunnel will have on the area, but it sets a frightening precedent for my constituents once again to see the rules being suspended.
Unlike previous speakers, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) who, I believe, may be speaking in a little while, have not been privileged to take part in the various debates of the past 17 months on this issue.

Mr. Snape: Why not?

Mr. Brazier: We were not Members of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you in your wisdom will determine whether I am in order or not; however, I would not be able to forgive myself if I sheltered entirely behind my constituency interests in saying that I feel profoundly unhappy about this matter. As I said earlier, this is an unseemly motion, covering an unsound project. There is a feature of monopolistic bodies that come to the House from time to time to ask for the rules to be suspended; they tend to do so most often when they are in trouble and losing money. I firmly believe that Eurotunnel will come back to the House because it will get itself into problems which, if I were to describe them in too much detail, would take me beyond the rules of order.
I started my business career with what I believe is the world's largest mining consortium. Should the procedural motion be passed, and should the promoters find themselves this summer in the markets succeeding in raising money, they would rapidly discover that geologists only tell one the bad news after one has started to dig the hole. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover


hopes to mention some other ways in which the project is fundamentally unsound, so I will not dwell on them in too much detail. If the procedural motion is passed—and, as a result, we rush through the legislation before it has been fully debated — and the money is raised in the markets this summer, we may find that we have done precisely the reverse of what the Conservative party tried to do and succeeded time and again in doing—namely, reducing the number of powerful and unnecessary bodies in the country. I refer to trade union barons and to some of the state monopolies that have been liberalised.
I am bringing my remarks to a close, as I see no great benefit in length. I fear that we shall find that we shall have built a fundamental frailty into our trading relationships with Europe, based around a sad, sick and unhappy monopoly the legal basis of which will have been pushed through against the rules of the House. It will survive making a miserable loss and competing in a price war against the ferries—ultimately achieving a position that will be bad for Britain's trading relationship with Europe.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to go a little beyond the bounds of the motion and I do not want to abuse your indulgence in this matter any further, except to say that I think the House may find that we shall wake up one day to discover that we have built an Achilles heel for Britannia.
Nevertheless, if the motion goes through this afternoon, and the money is raised in the markets, speaking as the hon. Member for Canterbury, for myself and, I believe, for some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, I may say that there will be no carping or sour grapes from us. Whatever our reservations, and whatever the feelings in our constituencies, we shall work with the organisation to make the best that we can of the project, provided that the Government and Eurotunnel respect the environmental considerations in east Kent.

Mr. Keith Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), and to one or two other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for making it clear that we are not discussing the motion but are engaged in Channel tunnel bashing yet again. I do not object to that, because I have heard similar speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South over the past 18 months. I do not think that they improve much with the keeping, and I expected the speech that he made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made some important points. However, let us consider what we are discussing: changes that were designed to meet the overwhelming wish of the majority of people in the area concerned. They were supported by all parties—I stress, all parties—on the Shepway district council. Of course, Mr. Pattinson and, no doubt, one or two other individuals, are important people who are entitled to be heard, but the House must understand that hybrid Bills are hybrid Bills, not private or public Bills. They are special beasts.
Secondly, Parliament includes another place. We may not like to admit it, but there has been a certain element of schizophrenia here today. Hon. Members have said that Mr. Pattinson and others have been able to speak only to another place, and have not been able to get across their point of view about the changed access to this House—as if the Select Committee of another place were some

inferior body. As a constitutionalist I do not accept that. The other point of view is that, if one accepts that a Select Committee in another place is part of the procedure, then Mr. Pattinson was given scant and bad treatment. I would be out of order if I commented upon that, but I do not accept that he was given such treatment.
It would be unwise for the House in a frenzy of anti-tunnel, and in one or two cases a frenzy of anti-European, activity to attack a procedural motion designed to try to help local people. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was certainly anti-European in his speech. The motion is designed to help Eurotunnel, the Government and the local authorities to act n a sensible way to meet what is clearly the overwhelming wish of local people, of the local elected authority and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He has been working on this with great sensitivity on behalf of individuals and his constituents and also working with all the parties in the Shepway district council. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for his work in trying to get the best answer to a very difficult problem.
It is, perhaps, sometimes forgotten that the original scheme would have taken an additional 40 acres of very beautiful countryside and was overwhelmingly unpopular with local people. Those points have to be made because they have not been made before. The House always faces this kind of dilemma when one embarks upon great public enterprises. That applies whether the enterprise is a road, an airport scheme or a tunnel. At the end of the day, some people inevitably lose their property. Sometimes it is not a case of people losing property but of unfortunate people who will be adversely affected by a scheme and will have to live with it. They cannot sell the property and have to live with the traffic or the aeroplanes rushing past. Wherever possible we should take every step to ensure that such people, who are important, are treated properly, sensitively and generously.
Parliament has to decide whether one, two or three individuals can be allowed to hold up major schemes. I do not have to remind the House of the delays to the completion of the M25. Two or three people, quite properly and within the law, delayed the completion of that great motorway. Some people, quite properly, delayed the completion of the M3 past Winchester. One wonders how many people were killed on the existing substandard roads as a result of those delays. People are entitled to object to schemes and a balance must always be struck. I do not know this area as well as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but I know it very well and I know the views of all the parties on the district council. Given those 'actors and the way that my hon. and learned Friend has acted. I am convinced that the House would not be wise if it did not pass the motion. My hon. and learned Friend clearly outlined the proposition to the House.
There is no point at the end of this Session in involving ourselves in great furore against the tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitkin) conjured up visions of Libyan banks and geisha houses in Japan and all sorts of other things. They are good emotive terms, but he knows that the House has been discussing this matter for a long time, as has another place. In a way that is unique, not only in the West


but in the world as a whole, Parliament has taken a great deal of time, care and expertise to try to solve all the legitimate problems of individuals.
I certainly hope that people such as Mr. Pattinson can be properly, sensitively and generously compensated for the undoubted loss or disadvantage that they will suffer. There is no question that in a scheme of this kind individuals will suffer. That is inevitable. When the first railway was built individuals suffered, and when the first road was built, whether by the Romans or even before their time, individuals suffered. The argument is for the greater good of all. Of course we must be careful that the greater-good-of-all argument is not used as an excuse to crush individuals.
Our procedures in another place have not operated against individuals. I support the motion. Let us get on with the motion and with the amendments moved in another place. In a period of buoyant optimism, as opposed to the pathetic, negative depression with which some of my hon. Friends seem to regard this project, we can turn into reality what we have been talking about for far too long.

Sir John Farr: Some hon. Members who spoke were not at the meeting of the Select Committee on Standing Orders last Thursday. It would help the House, and clear up genuine misunderstanding, if I said something about how this quite ancient Select Committee works. It is not a pressure group for or against the Common Market. It consists of 11 hon. Members, and the Chairman is the Chairman of Ways and Means. We meet from time to time to decide whether Standing Orders should be dispensed with.
I am sure that the Minister has not grasped the reason why I feel so incensed about being asked to approve this Government motion. It is that on the Select Committee on Standing Orders we send for witnesses. We listen to experts and have given to us a point of view that, rightly or wrongly, enables the members of the Committee to make the right decision. The Government machinery is asking the House to steamroller aside a decision taken on a five to three free vote in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who is not in the Chamber, admits that the vote would be six to two if he had to vote again after what he has learned.
The Committee heard the witnesses giving evidence. It is not possible for all hon. Members to have the benefit of hearing the evidence that we heard. It is a tragedy that, within four or five days of the Committee meeting on Thursday morning, the Minister and the Government machine are asking the House to sweep aside the Committee's decision. We may have taken a wrong decision, but I and the other members of the Committee were in a far better position to judge the matter. That is because we heard the evidence from the witnesses and the experts and read the papers that other hon. Members in all parts of the House did not see because they did not have time.
If I may say so without punishment, we are seeing all that is bad in the party whipping system. An awkward little Select Committee has taken an awkward little decision because it thinks that the decision should be taken. That is inconvenient for the Government machine

and for that reason the House is being asked to push aside the decision of the Select Committee. I urge my hon. Friends to bear in mind before overruling the decision of the Committee that we took the decision after hearing all the witnesses that we had time to hear.
I have been on the Select Committee long enough with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that you attend to your duties in a punctilious manner. In the course of a year we could have 10 to 20 meetings and a whole range of private or hybrid Bills to consider. After hearing the witnesses we are advised by learned counsel whether it is right that Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and we generally accept learned counsel's recommendation.
On Thursday, the Committee decision was taken quite clearly and openly. We feel that an injustice is established in this motion that the House is being asked to approve. By a vote of five to three—which, as I say, would have been six to two—we felt that Standing Orders should not be dispensed with and that Mr. Pattinson had not had a chance to have his case heard by the House. It had been heard before the other place. Over the years, we have established the fact that the ordinary people should have an opportunity to be heard before both Houses of Parliament. Tonight my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking us to sweep aside that traditional practice. This is a sad and sorry day for democracy in Britain.
I shall be voting against the motion tonight and I hope that a number of my hon. Friends will join me. I feel most strongly that we took the best decision in the Select Committee as we knew far more than hon. Members on both sides of the House can know because we had experts to advise us. We are now being asked to cast the decision aside. That is intolerable.

Mr. Michael Fallon: When Sir Alex Fletcher was temporarily absent from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill last year, I had the privilege to chair that Committee. As Sir Alex Fletcher is temporarily—we hope—absent from the House tonight, I want to say a word about the motion from the vantage point of the Select Committee.
The motion is unusual. Every previous speaker has recognised that. However, I believe that those who have spoken against the motion have ignored the three reasons upon which it is based. We are dealing with a very unusual Bill. It is complex and controversial and, above all, it embraces a number of very important interests which cannot always be easily reconciled one with another. Secondly, the motion arises because the House has been determined from the start of the proceedings on the Bill more than a year ago—I stress that to my hon. Friends who have suggested that we are being stampeded — to ensure that the interests were fully protected and fairly handled throughout the Bill's passage. Thirdly, the motion is worthy of support because the amendments before the Select Committee on Standing Orders arose during the Bill's passage and because of the exceptional trouble that the House took to safeguard the private interests and to reconcile them wherever possible.
I bear some witness to that exceptional trouble because I was a member of the Select Committee of this House which last year sat for 36 days from 10 am to 8 pm during four weeks of the recess. It sat for 220 hours and heard nearly 5,000 petitions against the Bill.
The steps that were taken to safeguard the interests with regard to the access to the Cheriton terminal were the most exceptional. That was due in no small part to the determination of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to protect and advance the interests of his constituents. My hon. and learned Friend and his friends, his local authority and other interested parties came back to persuade the House on 17 July to empower the Select Committee to consider alternative access proposals because the original scheme, inelegantly entitled WG1, did not protect or advance the interests of his constituents. The original version of the alternative access proposals was called WG2.
In the event, the Select Committee was not persuaded in favour of the proposals. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe is very determined — just how determined we shall probably find out as this legislative Session unfolds—and he went on to work with his constituents, the district council and other bodies involved to formulate a different version of alternative access arrangements which were then submitted to a Select Committee of another place and were agreed by that Committee to be the joint southern access arrangements.
It should be no surprise therefore to the House to learn that the Select Committee on Standing Orders a week or so ago ruled that the Standing Orders have not been complied with. We predicted that in the debate a few days ago. It was obvious from the start that the various Standing Orders relevant to the deposition and sending out of notices and publication of notices could not possibly have been complied with because the arrangements to which they related were devised long after the Bill had been published and formulated. Having ruled that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, the Select Committee had to decide whether they should be dispensed with.
We cannot satisfactorily answer that question because we have not had the benefit of reading the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. We have not had the advice of the Chairman, although we have heard the advice of some of the Select Committee members this afternoon. We are bound to observe that, in moving from the question whether the Standing Orders have been complied with to the further question whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders has moved from an area in which its advice might be useful to the House to an area of decision making where it is beginning to impose itself on the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) constantly referred to a decision that had been taken by the Select Committee. The Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot take a decision on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. Only the House can take that decision. Having agreed that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders can offer us advice on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. However, the Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot decide that matter for the House. It is for the House this afternoon to decide whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with.

Sir John Farr: Of course the proceedings of every Select Committee are governed by this House. There were two

items of business on the agenda when the Committee met on Thursday. The first was to approve the normal Sessional resolutions and the other was to consider whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. We came to a decision about the second. I would say that every Committee decision is a recommendation to the House. Only in most unusual and exceptional circumstances do the Government choose to overturn a decision in this way.

Mr. Fallon: I do not think that we are too far apart. In the second topic of business on the agenda — the consideration—the Committee came to a resolution. It is up to the House to decide very shortly whether to uphold that resolution or to reject it. We would be justified in upholding that resolution of the Select Committee on Standing Orders only if there were private interests affected by the new joint southern access arrangements which were unaware of the arrangements, were taken unawares by them or did not have sufficient or ample opportunity to put their views to Parliament.
The first test cannot be met. No one on either side of the argument is suggesting that Mr. Pattinson or indeed one or two others who are now adversely affected by the joint southern access arrangements could possibly have been unaware of the promoters' proposals. The second test whether Mr. Pattinson and others had ample and sufficient opportunity to be heard by this House—is crucial for the House. I understand that Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Standing Orders Select Committee. He wanted the various Lords amendments, which we shall consider later, to be considered by a fresh Select Committee.
There are three points to be made about that. First, Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Commons Select Committee on 22 October last year. Secondly, he appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee on 12 March this year. Thirdly, if a third Select Committee were established to consider the matter all over Again —Mr. Pattinson has recognised that there would be petitioners for and against the new joint southern access arrangements — it is highly likely that there would be more petitions in favour of those arrangements than against. No useful purpose would be served by setting up a further Select Committee to hear these arguments again.
In the absence of any further reasoning from the Standing Orders Committee — I think that one Committee member has still to speak to us—I submit that the House should not uphold the Standing Orders Committee's resolution, not decision, but should support the motion.

Mr. David Shaw: At the start of the debate, I was somewhat pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had spoken up. It seems that he will lead the first official Labour party vote against the Government on the Channel tunnel issue.

Mr. Snape: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new here, but it is important that he gets matters right. The Labour party voted against the Bill on Second Reading on the grounds that the issue demanded a public inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that, because of my support for the Channel tunnel, I have acted in any way against my party's policy, he is wrong on that, too.

Mr. Shaw: I would not in any way suggest that the hon. Gentleman was behaving improperly and I withdraw any


such allegation. But it was of note during the election campaign that Labour party members made many national speeches in favour of the building of the Channel tunnel, although they endeavoured, wherever possible locally in Dover, to deny that the Labour party was in favour of that project. I totally accept that the hon. Gentleman's principles for or against the rights of the individual and for or against political convenience may be called into question occasionally, but, of course, in all instances I would apply the most noble considerations to his motives.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I served on the Channel tunnel Select Committee, as did the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) behaved in a most proper way during the Select Committee's hearings.

Mr. Fallon: Yes.

Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Although I disagreed with the Labour party's policy on the Channel tunnel, I was happy to sit in an investigative capacity and to do my duty properly on the Select Committee. It ill becomes an hon. Member, new or old, to impugn motives that are less than honourable. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.

Mr. Shaw: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that at all times I would apply the most noble of motives to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I would in no way imply that he was being hypocritical in the House, although some hypocrisy was noted in Dover when comparing the various manifestos and literature.
I should like to concentrate on the motion before the House. It is important that we are not sidetracked into considering overall political matters. The House of Commons is a House of political judgment where behaviour should be of the highest standards, as I implied.

Mr. Rogers: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not conform to that idea and apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.

Mr. Shaw: Not only should hon. Members behave according to the highest standards but the House and its Members should comply with the procedures that are published and available to the public. It is the public who have to bear the brunt of our deliberations and decisions.
The procedures on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and this procedure in particular, have been rushed. The constituents of Dover and I are concerned that, if the Channel tunnel is built — there are still many grave doubts about that—it will exist for some 50 or more years. The House should get matters right when considering such a long period.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Public Transport made a slight error last time we discussed this measure. He seemed to be under the impression that I had referred to the Commons Select Committee hearings not being properly advertised in terms of inviting people to petition. In fact, I was referring to the House of Lords Select Committee. It was apparent from Lord Ampthill's comments that the Department of Transport had not given enough notice. He felt obliged to criticise that Department. That has been a source of continual regret to

me and many of my constituents who were not able to submit petitions within the deadline, some seven days after advertising.
During the limited time in which I have been a Member I have endeavoured to come to grips with that large volume called "Erskine May". It appears from a number of examples that the procedures followed have been wrong and that advertising did not occur as it should have. Many of those examples referred to that modern means of transport some 100 years after the Channel tunnel was first thought of—the tramway—and to improper advertising. It seems from the various deliberations that, wherever possible, the House required the correction of the procedures that had gone wrong. The problem with this error is that it cannot be corrected. It is not possible to re-advertise and go through all the procedures. There is no time to do so and Mr. Pattinson has already spent an immense amount of money and a whole year on improving his property. The House must search its conscience hard and consider whether it should pass this motion, which rides roughshod over previous decisions. I believe that it should not be passed. This would reveal, not only to Mr. Pattinson but to all the people of Dover, that the House feels strongly that the Channel Tunnel Bill should have gone through the proper procedures and that they should have been enabled to take part in the petitioning process as much as they wished.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall endeavour to be brief. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have sat for a number of years on the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I believe that I am right in saying — I always bow to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose knowledge of these matters is profound and much respected—that the Standing Orders Committee met more frequently and sat longer on the Channel tunnel issue than on any other issue in living memory.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: indicated assent.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend nods, so clearly I am right.
To pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), members of that Select Committee, which you chaired with great distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the opportunity to read statements and evidence which perhaps has not been read or appreciated by many hon. Members. I include, for instance, the statement on behalf of Barry Pattinson opposing the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders, Mr. Pattinson's memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in support of the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders and extracts — some long, some short—of proceedings in another place dealing with Mr. Barry Pattinson's evidence.
We have heard some very colourful and emotional speeches this afternoon. I respect the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I always come into the Chamber when he speaks because of the entertainment that he provides. He is flamboyant and he is forthright. He feels deeply what he says. However, detail and specifics are


not the strength of his speeches. I say that with respect, because I know that he is held in immense respect both inside and outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) gave us a well-mustered series of arguments in support of his case, which he has put extremely well time and again, both in the House and to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. However, some of the examples that he quoted were very specific and very limited, and I only wish that he had advanced some of the other matters involved in dealing with this extremely complicated and important issue.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am going to support the Government when we vote. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and for Rugby and Kenilworth, I was one of the three who voted in the Select Committee to dispense with Standing Orders. In a moment, I shall endeavour to explain why I did that, and why I believe that the House should vote for the motion.
Let me pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who in my estimation made the best contribution to today's debate. He spoke factually and from knowledge, which I think will help the House to take its difficult decision. He accurately pointed out that the joint southern access had been agreed by all the local authorities in the area. It has been agreed by amenity societies, and by hundreds of people who are concerned about the Channel tunnel. I therefore believe that the proposal that is the root cause of the debate should be fully understood by the House. It is not simply a matter of Eurotunnel seeking to stampede the House and the Government into a hasty decision. The joint southern access has been agreed between Eurotunnel, Kent county council, Shepway district council, the amenity interests and the other people whom I mentioned a moment ago.
Let me deal specifically with Barry Pattinson. The debate in the Select Committee on Standing Orders and the debate this afternoon have occurred because of that individual, and we respect what he stands for. However, we should take other matters into consideration. Mr. Pattinson petitioned against the amendments in both Houses, and gave evidence in support of his petitions to both Select Committees—in the House of Commons on 22 October 1986 and in the House of Lords on 12 March 1987. He appeared as a memorialist before the Examiners and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) — who also made a valuable contribution to the debate—he appeared with his agent before the Select Committee on Standing Orders when it met last week.
If we are to deal with the matter properly, we must understand on what grounds the Committee and the House can dispense with compliance with Standing Orders and allow a Bill to proceed. Again, I am referring to papers with which the Committee was provided last week. I understand that a number of factors must be taken into account: delay on the part of sponsors, and the reason for that delay; the public interest; the urgency of the matter; and the extent to which other parties are affected. We have been advised by you and by your Counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all those matters have been discussed at some length in the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
I think that I am right in saying—in regard to delay — that within two weeks of the House's instruction empowering its Select Committee to consider alternative proposals for access, and to make amendments if it

thought fit, the documents relating to the amendments in question had been prepared and deposited. The necessary notices were immediately served, and publication of the public notices began.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has been consistent and honourable throughout the debates on the Bill, and I support him in many of the reason; for which he supports the Bill. It will be good for British Rail, and therefore good for the country, because it will help communication. I say that to show that there is quite a lot of common ground between us. But, on grounds of public interest and urgency, there is clearly a case for Standing Orders to be waived.
Mr. Pattinson is the linchpin in this matter. I say this with every respect for the forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, but I have reached a different conclusion from him. I believe that Mr. Pattinson has had every opportunity to present his case.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: So that my hon. Friend does not unwittingly place untrue statements on the record, may I ask whether he agrees that the actual proposal on which we are to vote, and which will take away Mr. Pattinson's house, has never been before a Committee of the House? He referred to different proposals and different amendments from those on which we shall vote.

Mr. Winterton: I understand that, while the specific matter relating to an amendment that could demolish Mr. Pattinson's house has, indeed, not been before the House, the access route which will demolish his house has been considered at length in both Houses by Select Committees, and—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has said—has been rejected.
Let me return to a point made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ashford. In any major civil engineering project—and this is perhaps one of the largest such project in the history of the world — it is inevitable that some people's interests cannot be fully safeguarded. However, I can say from knowledge of what occurred in the Select Committee of Standing Orders that Eurotunnel, local authorities and others are doing their utmost to assist Mr. Pattinson. He has been introduced to some 20 properties, but he has found it necessary to reject them. He would have liked to buy one of them, but the lady who owned it ultimately decided not to sell. Everyone is going out of their way to assist him, to ensue that he receives the maximum possible compensation and to give him all the advice and support that they can.
The crux of the matter is that I do not believe that those wishing to oppose the amendments have been prevented or handicapped by the lack of earlier notice. That is what this debate is about. Let me repeat for the benefit of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that Mr. Pattinson presented his petitions in time, and was represented before, and gave evidence to, Select Committees in both Houses.

Mr. Fallon: Has my hon. Friend considered the logical extension of the points made to him by our hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop): that if every petitioner who was affected by an amendment made to a hybrid Bill in another place were to be afforded a second opportunity to petition against the detail, not the substance, of that amendment, an entirely separate Committee stage would be required in this place to consider the Lords amendments?

Mr. Winterton: I do not need to respond to my hon. Friend, because he has developed his own argument. It would be nonsense; we should indeed need to develop a new Committee stage system. The promotion of any major civil engineering or other project would take so long that it could never be financed, so we should make absolutely no progress.
I have great reservations about the European Community. However, having made an active study recently of British Rail and of the Channel tunnel project, I believe that it will be of immense benefit to this country. The overwhelming majority of the people of Kent will benefit from the tunnel. It would be very unfortunate, therefore, if their future were to remain uncertain. The House would be doing them no service. For that reason, I shall support the Government tonight. It is the only reasonable and rational course to take.

Mr. Robert Adley: I have listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to those of my hon. Friends. I wonder where else in the world and in which other national legislature Mr. Pattinson would have had such a fair and square deal and such a fair and thorough consideration of his circumstances.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right, and we should take pride in that. But the opposite is also true. What other legislature in the world would allow its Government to put through, on a three-line Whip, a motion to do down Mr. Pattinson?

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend tempts me. Does he seriously suggest that in the Kremlin there would be an airing for Mr. Pattinson? My hon. Friend has not made a very good point. However, he enables me to move quickly to my second point, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is that not only members of the Select Committee but all hon. Members have an interest in this motion. Many of my hon. Friends will accept my proposition that I am not the most slavish follower of the advice that is given by the Whips. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the Government motion. I make the point to my new hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that many of us listened to Sir Peter Rees and to Sir David Crouch making a quite different case on behalf of the constituents my hon. Friends now represent. I am bound to say that I listened briefly to their comments but that I listened at length to those of their predecessors.

Mr. Brazier: In his last speech to the House, Sir David Crouch distinguished clearly and correctly his own views from those of his constituents and made it clear that, though he supported these proposals, the vast majority of the people in his constituency did not do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into going into the merits of the Bill. We are dealing with the procedural motion that is before the House.

Mr. David Shaw: Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to speak briefly on that point. In my maiden speech I paid tribute to the way in which Sir Peter Rees looked after his constituency interests. After he had left the

Cabinet he felt that it was appropriate to disavow the collective responsibility that he had accepted in Cabinet. Consequently, after that date he opposed very strongly at all stages the Channel Tunnel Bill.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover rose on a point of order, and it is not for me to answer it. All I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is that he has confirmed that Sir David Crouch put what he believed to be the national interest ahead of what he knew was popular in his constituency. Many hon. Members applaud him for doing so.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been a Member of this House for longer than I have, and tonight he will have heard familiar voices attached to familiar faces making familiar points. The Government are absolutely right to bring forward this motion. The House has had plenty of time to make its collective view known. I shall refer to a speech that was made in my constituency by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), because it sums up the opposition to the Bill. One of his constituents said to him recently, "I don't want this tunnel because I don't want all this rabies brought into Britain." My hon. Friend made the point that France is by no means full of rabid dogs, to which my hon. Friend's constituent replied, "Oh, it's not the dogs I'm concerned about; it's the Frenchmen." This is a last-ditch attempt to stop the Bill. I need no encouragement whatsoever to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby and vote in favour of the motion.

Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to the House for the fact that I missed the earlier part of the debate. I was detained by some rather sombre business in my constituency.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that this is a last-ditch attempt to frustrate the will of the House. I hope and believe that I have fought as hard as any on behalf of my constituents in my corner of Kent, but the will of the House has been clearly expressed. Therefore it is not for the Standing Orders Committee to seek to undermine the will of the House.
Throughout these deliberations my hon. Friend the Minister of State has listened courteously to our arguments and he has responded to them. We are grateful to him for doing so. We have most certainly benefited from that. The will of the investors has still to be tested. If the Channel tunnel project goes ahead, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we shall fight tooth and nail to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel come to north-east Kent and that they do not go to the Pas de Calais. As it is not the business of the Standing Orders Committee to seek to frustrate the will of the House and as the will of the House has already been expressed, I shall support the Government.

The Minister of Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the principle involved and to the specific case of Mr. Pattinson. I agree that it is right that this House should be concerned about the rights of an individual. Therefore I shall seek to refer fully to the points that he has raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) regrets that the Government have proceeded in the way that they have instead of by invoking an ancient procedure of this House, which I understand was last invoked in 1829 in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington. I shall deal in detail with that point, but in his preliminary skirmish I must say to my hon. Friend—and he is a friend as well as an hon. Friend—that had I followed his advice Mr. Durkin, parliamentary counsel for Mr. Pattinson, would have been heard at the Bar of the House. However, the amendment would destroy four houses on one side of the road. If Mr. Pattinson had won the argument after his counsel had been heard at the Bar of the House, those whose property would have been severely damaged by the alternative proposals should surely have had an equal right to be heard at the Bar of the House. How long, then, would these proceedings have continued and how far and how wide should they have been?
My hon. Friend claims that Mr. Pattinson was never heard in this House, but he was. I hope that I can show the House that he was heard. If my hon. Friends look at page 1605 of Vol. 4 of the meetings of the Select Committee on Channel tunnel, Session 1985–86, Minutes of Evidence, they will find reference to the petition being made. On page 1605 there is the introduction of the Shepway proposal and on page 1606 we have Mr. Pattinson making his points. He was heard in respect of a proposal that the Select Committee did not recommend to the House. That was not on the grounds of the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's house, but that on operational grounds the proposal would not be effective. Therefore, I shall refer to the report of the Select Committee where it deals with this matter. It says:
Euro Tunnel found WG2 workable but regarded it as 'a second best and very much a second best'. There was no substantial difference in cost. …
It goes on to say that there was not sufficient length of road for people to be able to weave from one side of the road to the other or to adjust their mirrors. On safety grounds it was unattractive.
It ends:
We believe that there will be less confusion and a better arrangement for frontier checks if the original scheme is retained in the Bill. We decided that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing their scheme. We favoured the operationally preferred scheme.
It was on operational grounds and not on the grounds of the four houses concerned, including that of Mr. Pattinson, that the Committee of the House, having heard Mr. Pattinson—I draw that specifically to the attention of the House—decided otherwise.
A compromise solution was found which was agreeable to all parties. It was agreeable to Shepway district council and Kent county council. Initially, it was not met with great enthusiasm by Eurotunnel, but eventually it agreed. It was agreeable to the joint consultation committee that I chaired, which met in Kent and examined the matter in considerable detail.
When the matter was raised in the Standing Committee of the House I was pressed by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) to make this amendment to the Bill. With some considerable difficulty I persuaded the Committee not to accept that amendment to ensure that Mr. Pattinson had a better opportunity to present his case in the House of Lords, where he would have the opportunity of appearing as a

petitioner in front of the Lords Committee. That duly happened; the Lords Committee was made aware of the effect that the amendment would have on this house, but it found in favour of the joint southern access. If hon. Members turn to the Lords evidence they will see that there was considerable discussion and understanding of these points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) helpfully served on the Standing Orders Committee and explained the broader issues that were involved. The amendment must be considered in the context of the widespread support in Kent of those who were involved with it. I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss it later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) helpfully explained why, as a member of the Standing Committee, he voted for the dispensation. That leads me on to the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Darlington (Mr. Fallon) with regard to the area of Folkestone. The godfather of this proposal was my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government. He has attended all of our proceedings but, for reasons of which we are all aware, he is unable to part cipate now. This amendment affects his constituency, but his constituents have demonstrated considerable support for it.
As a hybrid Bill the Channel Tunnel Bill should have been introduced on or before 27 November. Since it was not, and could not be so introduced, Standing Orders have not been complied with, but the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from the Standing Orders. Since the Bill was introduced out of time, the amendments must inevitably fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. The amendment with which we are now concerned has received the widespread support in Kent that I referred to, as it has in the Standing Committee of the House and in the upper House, which inserted the amendments.
The effect of this motion will not be to insert the amendment into the Bill, but it will enable the House to consider the amendment later today. It is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The motion has found few friends from either side of the House. I concede that four Conservative Members have spoken in favour of it, but the majority of Conservative and Opposition Members hare spoken against its terms because of a cross-party desire to uphold the rights of an individual above those of the House.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and I served on the Standing Committee. I think that since I was elected in 1974, I have served on every committee appertaining to the Channel tunnel. I find the view that Mr. Pattinson's case has been adequately considered by a Committee of the House less than attractive. It is possible to argue, as the Minister understandably and justifiably did, that an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee which would have set aside the original decision of the Select Committee and opted for the access and egress scheme. For the sake of brevity I shall refer to it as WG2, as amended. Such an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee, but it would have caused an enormous row, although it would have


been accepted because the Government have a majority in the Standing Committee. Their whip would go round—I speak as a former and failed whip — and drum up support for this amendment, had it been tabled in the Standing Committee. However, that excuse will not wash.
We have been continually told that all the local authorities in the area are in favour of WG2 as amended. They may have been knocked into line recently, but we all know—

Mr. David Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Snape: —that the Minister for Local Government staked his reputation on getting the original proposals, as accepted by the Select Committee, changed. He was successful in the long term, but that success has been at the expense of the individual petitioner.

Mr. Mitchell: There was no question of local authorities in Kent being knocked into line; it was a case of the Government being persuaded by pressure from people in the locality, Shepway district council, Kent county council, representatives who served on the joint consultative committee and all the local authorities in the immediate vicinity. They wanted this proposal carried through. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will remember that when he was serving on the Standing Committee we had to suspend it while we looked at whether it was possible to deal with an acceptance of this amendment. I persuaded the committee not to do so to enable people in Kent to have their views accepted. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposed this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front Benches must observe the rules. We must not deal with the merits of the Bill or any amendments.

Mr. Snape: I am trying to deal with the rights of the individual. I shall not attempt to rehash the debates that we have had.
We maintain that the petitioner, about whom this debate has largely been concerned, has not had a fair deal. He came to give evidence to the Select Committee; we listened to his evidence and the Select Committee made a decision, across party lines — the hon. Member for Darlington and I voted the same way with regard to that decision — to uphold the original scheme, as placed before us—the access-egress known as WG1.
An alternative was brought forward — whether to save the face of the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or for any other reason, is immaterial—and it was never considered by the Select Committee in the House. It could have been considered by the Standing Committee, as we have said, but it has been considered only by the Select Committee in another place.
The crucial question is, are we to uphold the rights of an individual petitioner as well as the rights of the House? There is no greater supporter of the Channel tunnel project than myself. I have been an officer on the all-party Channel tunnel group for 12 of the 13 years during which I have been a Member of the House. However, I cannot bring myself to vote for the Government motion. The debate has been about what we think about upholding the rights of individuals who are not Members of the House.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) by saying that detail and specifics are not his strong points. We all know the strong point of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. Good heavens, not for nothing was he known as rent-a-quote in his early years in the House. However, he is a reformed character now and, alas, it has not yet brought him the preferment to which I believe he is entitled. Regardless of his view of my right hon. Friend, regardless of the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, this is probably the only issue on which we have disagreed in my comparatively few years in the House and his many years and regardless of personal feelings about the project, it is the duty and responsibility of hon. Members to uphold the right not only of the House against the views of another place but the views of individuals, who may not happen to be our constituents, but who have no other recourse but to ask hon. Members to support them. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support that individual petitioner tonight by voting against this motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 196.

Division No. 23]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Allason, Rupert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evennett, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil






Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


French, Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fry, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gardiner, George
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon C.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Tony


Gow, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Onslow, Cranley


Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grylls. Michael
Page, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Paice, James


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hayward, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Price, Sir David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Renton, Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight. Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Summerson, Hugo


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Hal
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William





Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray



Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Faulds, Andrew


Aitken, Jonathan
Fearn, Ronald


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashdown, Paddy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harman, Ms Harr et


Bradley, Keith
Haynes, Frank


Brazier, Julian
Henderson, Douglas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Holland, Stuart


Buckley, George
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
John, Brynmor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lamond, James


Cousins, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alastair
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Doran, Frank
McKelvey, William


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunnachie, James
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Fan, Sir John
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin






Meale, Alan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Michael, Alun
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morley, Elliott
Steinberg, Gerald


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist. Dave
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Winnick, David


Reid, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Richardson, Ms Jo
Worthington, Anthony


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wray, James


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, be dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed.

Channel Tunnel Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TUNNEL RAIL LINK BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out "and its supplementary protocols and arrangements"

The Minister of Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 86 and 87.

Mr. Mitchell: These are purely drafting improvements.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Mr. David Shaw: May I say on Lords amendment No. 2—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments have now been agreed to by the House. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is too late. I have put the Question on the amendments. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably dealing with Lords amendments for the first time. If he uses his ingenuity, I am sure that he will be able to make on subsequent amendments the points that he wished to make on the first group. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet obtained a copy of the groupings of Lords amendments, he should find one in the No Lobby, and I am sure that he will find it helpful.

Clause 2

NO GOVERNMENT FUNDS OR GUARANTEES FOR THE TUNNEL SYSTEM

Lords amendments: No. 6, in page 3, line 17, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (2A) below,".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 78.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments were made by the Select Committee in another place in response to the petition of the British Ports Association. The BPA accepted clause 2(2), which provides that the concessionaires should not be barred from eligibility for the funds equally available to others. However, it was concerned about the Government's power to grant-aid transport projects under section 56(1) of the Transport Act 1968. The Government did not intend that that power should be used to grant-aid the Channel tunnel. We were therefore able to accept the amendment to clause 2 and a similar amendment to clause 40 to prevent the payment of grant aid under the 1968 Act in respect of British Rail's international services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Peter Snape: I appreciate that any grant aid under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 is forbidden under the terms of the amendment. Will the Minister tell me whether that would also preclude any financial assistance to British Rail under any other Act with regard to the provision of adequate railway facilities — both passenger and freight—prior to the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993?
I understand that the amendment is narrow and deals specifically with section 56 of the 1968 Act. I hope that the acceptance of the amendment will not preclude British Rail from making proper and full provision for passenger and freight traffic expected and projected in the run-up to the opening of the Channel tunnel. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this, but it is somewhat ironic that the British Ports Association should be so anxious for statutes to be written into law when it was the first to demand that the roads to the ports be improved at each and every opportunity — not at their expense but at public expense.
There appears to be a little inconsistency here, although I do not expect the Minister to follow me down this controversial road.

Mr. Mitchell: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about British Rail being able to carry out the investment that it requires to enable it to finance the marshalling yards and other provisions. The Bill as amended makes it explicit that there can be no Government grants to British Rail in respect of Eurotunnel's services, but British Rail is perfectly able to use its borrowing powers and commercial money to make the investments that it requires to carry through what is, for it, a commercial project.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 8

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE SCHEDULED WORKS AND OTHER AUTHORISED WORKS

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 47, at end insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State is authorised by this section to acquire by agreement any land which he is not otherwise authorised to acquire and which is required for the construction and maintenance of the Concessionaires' scheduled works and other works in connection with those works or otherwise for any purposes of the construction or operation by the Concessionaires of the tunnel system.

7 pm

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Mitchell: The amendment clarifies an area of legal uncertainty. Some detailed changes have been made to the tunnel scheme, notably at Ashford. Eurotunnel has already purchased additional land by agreement. It will need to seek planning permission in the normal way. If it uses additional land as part of the tunnel system, it is important that it is covered by the same ground rules. The Secretary of State must hold the freehold and grant

Eurotunnel a lease. The amendment establishes the Secretary of State's ability to acquire the freehold of the land.

Mr. Roger Gale: The clause would allow the Secretary of State to make available land for the construction of, or for purposes connected with, the construction of the tunnel. I have paid tribute to the courtesy and sympathy with which my hon. Friend has responded to the needs of north-east Kent. I wish that I could pay a similar tribute to Transmanche Ltd. but I cannot.
When the project was mooted, one of the blandishments that was offered out to Members representing north-east Kent was the prospect of increased employment, not least in the hotels in the area. At one stage, it was suggested that Transmanche Ltd. might need 1,000 bed nights a week for its construction workers and that those beds could be provided in some of the emptier—during the winter—hotels and guest houses in Thanet. British Rail said that it might be willing to lay on special trains from Thanet to Cheriton to convey such workers from our hotels to the construction site.
As a result of that proposal, the chief executive of Thanet district council wrote to Transmanche Ltd. and made some semi-formal propositions. Transmanche Ltd. replied, effectively saying that it was unwilling to transport workers from the Thanet area. It has said that it is more than willing to bus construction workers from London, from the Medway towns, from Ashford and From pretty well anywhere except Thanet.
I make the point now because I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond and that he will take great care before granting further land to Transmanche Ltd. until it honours some of the undertakings that it appeared at one stage to have given to use the facilities that are already available in north-east Kent.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that matter. He may be aware that it was discussed by the joint consultation committee which meets in Kent. In the light of what he said, I shall ensure that the matter is raised again at the committee's next meeting, when I expect that Transmanch e Ltd. will be represented. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will support the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 9

PLANNING PERMISSION, ETC

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 29, leave out
, vehicles or" and insert
or of vehicles or other".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. This is a minor drafting improvement.

Mr. David Shaw: The amendment relates to vehicle movements, and I am worried about the fact that, in Dover, we have a road which is a national disgrace. That is the part of the A2 known as Jubilee way between Lydden and Dover port. Recently, that road has been dug up regularly — I can confirm that it has happened during the past six months — and despite that, it has unfortunately been impossible to add another lane. Traffic


delays are horrendous when it is being dug up and when it has been in single-lane use. I hope that the Government will consider the full dualling of the carriageway on the final seven miles from Lydden into the port in the not-too-distant future. After all, the road is the main export route into Europe.
I was pleased when the House of Lords Select Committee realised that the road was needed. But the Department of Transport has said that the requests from Kent county council are "under review" and are receiving "active consideration". As we know, that can be bureaucratic wording meaning that the matter is sitting on a desk somewhere. I hope that the road proposals will soon come to the fore among the papers on that desk and that it will be improved. The accident rate and the traffic rate justify the upgrading to a dual carriageway. The East Kent coroner, who has had to deal with several deaths on the road, will support my words.

Mr. Mitchell: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said about the A2. Traffic on the M2-A2 corridor will undoubtedly decrease when the final secton of the M20 from Maidstone to Ashford and the A20 from Folkestone to Dover are complete. For several years, it has been the Department's policy that the M20-A20 should be the principal route between London and both the ports and the Channel tunnel. The planning of improvements to the network has taken place on that basis.
As my hon. Friend said, the stretch of road which causes the greatest anxiety is the section between Lydden and Dover. Our traffic forecasts for the narrowest sections of that road assume that, by the time the Channel tunnel opens in 1993, the M20 will be complete, the new stretch of A20 from Folkestone to Dover will be open and most of the long-distance traffic to Dover as well as to the Channel tunnel will have transferred to the M20-A20 corridor. On that basis, the narrowest section of the A2 will be running well within the appropriate departmental recommended standards. Even by the year 2008, and taking an assumption of high economic growth, the road is still expected to be operating well within the recommended flow levels for a single carriageway.
There is then the question of what will happen if the A20 improvements, especially to the eastern half, which will be done under Highways Act procedures, are delayed despite the Government's best efforts. It is highly questionable whether improvements to the A2 could be carried out any sooner than delayed improvements to the A20, if our timetable on that is not met. But in the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I fully accept that in the event of a major delay to the A20 improvements, we should be prepared to consider the option of improvements to the A2. I hope that that assurance at least partially satisfies my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

REGULATION OF THE TUNNEL SYSTEM: APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 9, line 36, at end insert—
(aa) for the transfer to, and the vesting by virtue of the order in, any person or persons specified in the order (referred to below in this section as the transferee), on such terms (if any) as may be provided by the order—

 (i) on any substitution of Concessionaires under the Concession or on the expiry or termination of the Concession, of the interest of the former Concessionaires in all movable property and intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system;
(ii) on any such substitution, of all rights and liabilities of the former Concessionaires under the Concession or any Concession lease; and
(iii) on any such substitution which takes place in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, of liabilities of the former Concessionaires (other than liabilities within sub-paragraph (ii) above) of such description as may be so specified;
and for securing effective possession or control by the transferee of any movable property or rights in which any interest transferred by the order subsists;

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20, amendment (a) and 21 to 28.

Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had tabled an amendment to Lords amendment No. 20. Am I wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is that that is not an amendment to the amendment that we are discussing. It is taken with a series of other Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will be perfectly free to speak to his amendment, but he will not be called to move it at this stage. The debate will take place on Lords amendment No. 10, but it will be appropriate to discuss the other amendments which I read out. They were Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20 plus amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and amendments 21 to 28. That is the group that we are now discussing.

Mr. Mitchell: All the amendments are related to the Secretary of State's order-making powers under clause 11. The amendments may appear formidable but they involve only one significant policy change. The majority are essentially technical and drafting improvements.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I would like the House to consider the amendment that is in my name, namely:
Line 5, leave out from 'Britain' to 'or' in line 7.
The amendment will make it possible for there to be controls on board trains engaged in international services. It is important that we should consider the amendment and that the Minister should respond to it. There will be considerable restraints on the use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminus. In the answer to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister on 19 January, he stated:


British Rail estimates that about 70 per cent. of the passengers using its through Channel tunnel rail services will pass through the proposed Waterloo terminal."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 381.]
The Minister has indicated in other answers that he has given to me that there would be Customs and Excise facilities at Waterloo and not on the trains. I strongly recommend that he reconsiders that for a range of reasons.
One reason is the capacity constraints on Waterloo station. In the publicity that British Rail uses concerning the capacity and ability of Waterloo to absorb additional traffic, publicity that it has displayed for passengers at Waterloo—and the Minister knows of my interest—it was implied that the current number of weekday passengers using Waterloo was 180,000. That is well below the fullest capacity of the station at any previous date since the war. The highest was between 1970 and 1971 when it was just over 200,000. In a parliamentary answer that the Minister gave me on Monday, he said:
Eurotunnel's estimates of Channel tunnel traffic through rail passenger traffic do not distinguish between Waterloo and other UK locations.
Such United Kingdom locations are the subject of the Lords amendment that we are considering. He further stated:
British Rail's consultants, who concluded that the road and underground systems would be able to accommodate the Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo, based their assessment on 50,000 extra day-time passengers in 1993 rising to 59,000 in 2003."—[Official Report, 20 July 1987].
However, information given to me by a Mr. Nick Alexander of British Rail, who is responsible for evaluating the feasible traffic that will be generated, gives different results. British Rail has estimated that the weekday passengers — which term I have learnt from Mr. Nick Alexander means peak August Saturday—in the year 2003 will be some 241,000. However, Eurotunnel, which is concerned to support its flotation and give the impression that the Channel tunnel project will be a great commercial success and will carry a great many passengers, gives a higher figure of 262,000 passengers in the year 2003.
The additional traffic generated is way over the figures that the Minister has suggested in a parliamentary answer that he has just given me. It will be an extra 61,000 passengers per day instead of the 50,000 in the answer he gave on Monday, according to Mr. Nick Alexander's figures. It will be another 82,000 passengers rather than the 59,000 in the year 2003. This has considerable implications for the exclusive use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminal and for Customs and Excise being located there. The addition of 59,000 passengers would give a total weekday flow in August of 239,000, or 20 per cent. above the previous peak use of Waterloo station at any time since the war. It will be up to 40 per cent. higher if 30 trains per day were used rather than 20 trains per day. This relates to signalling, because if the lines are resignalled, as was maintained by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, there could be 30 trains per day rather than 20 trains per day.
7.15 pm
I will not labour the point on those figures as I appreciate that they are not that easy to grasp when stated in abstract. However, when modifying the diagram that British Rail has provided on weekday passengers at Waterloo it is quite clear that the previous peak use on this

line is around some 200,000 passengers. It simply shoots off the diagram when we take the higher figures estimated by British Rail and Eurotunnel.
This very much strengthens the case for not having a unique Customs and Excise terminal in London for passengers arriving in London. It strengthens the case for on-train Customs and Excise inspection. That is what we understand will be the case in France and Belgium. I asked the Minister earlier why we should have a flagship terminal at Waterloo if the French do not have one at Gare du Nord. What is the point of having such a terminal when it will constitute a bottleneck for traffic if there is not on-train inspection?
I ask the Minister to think again, because the real advantage of a rail link versus an air link arises if there is on-train inspection. That is what will make travel time by rail competitive overall with travel by air, when passengers can avoid the inconvenience of having to travel to Heathrow or to Gatwick to go through a Customs check there and so forth.
Many of us have probably taken a train from Brussels to Paris or to some similar point in our time and know that it is a much more convenient way to travel. Although the overall rail length of the trip from Londor to Paris or Brussels might be longer than the total travel time by going to an airport and catching a plane, the commercial viability of the project could depend on there being on train inspection for Customs and Excise. Lords amendment 20 says:
passengers carried on a train engaged on an international service on a journey beginning or intended to end at a place in Great Britain other than London or Cheriton, Folkestone or any place between those places
The whole substance of the clause and of subsections (2) and (3) is to provide facilities for such on-train inspection. It strengthens the case for having on-train inspection rather than a flagship facility at Waterloo.
We have come a long way with the Bill. When we first started to argue the case for dispersal, it was hardly admitted at all. Since then, the Minister has taken the case on board, and British Rail, to a lesser extent, has also taken it on board. They have made some evaluation—however half-hearted—of the case for dispersal of traffic which, therefore, will not have to go through London. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a point or two on social and traffic congestion costs from increased traffic generated at Waterloo. The congestion caused by a single terminal facility for Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo will be considerable.
However disputed British Rail's figures may have been at various times, we are talking about traffic going through Waterloo that will be equivalent to the total traffic of Gatwick airport. If the scheme succeeds, we shall be talking about traffic that is equivalent to a jumbo jet arriving or leaving Waterloo every three and a half minutes. It clearly is evident that if people can leave trains—

Mr. Mitchell: indicated dissent

Mr. Holland: The Minister shakes his head, but it is precisely the type of point on which we still need clarification. There is a vast disparity between, the figures that have been given by Eurotunnel and British Rail about how many people will use Waterloo. The matter is not at all clear. For example, if lines are resignalled, as has been made plain by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, the number of trains will increase by 50 per cent.
I urge the Minster to reconsider the matter and consider accepting my amendment. It will facilitate the viability of the project, reduce travelling time for those who use the Channel fixed-link facility and therefore reduce the potential bottleneck at Waterloo. That will be to the Minister's and Eurotunnel's advantage.

Mr. David Shaw: As has been said, the clause and the amendment to it affect the clearance of Customs procedures on trains. I am particularly concerned about the matter because, last December, I had a meeting with trade unions at the port of Dover. It was apparent to me that many trade unionists felt that the delays that are caused in Dover are related to Customs and Excise and that it clearly is not the men who work for Customs and Escise who are at fault but, perhaps, the systems and procedures that they are required to follow. The systems and procedures are somewhat traditional and, dare I suggest, as old as the original Commissioners would be if they were alive today. Therefore, I pay tribute to the way in which many Customs officers have to wrestle with procedures in Dover and the fact that so many drug smugglers are caught.
What will happen to the tunnel if the amendment is carried? On-board clearances will give undue preference to the tunnel if such speedy facilities are not available to the port and ferries. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 seems considerably to handicap ferries. I recently had reports that, in France and Belgium, ferry operators are unable to check passports and are unable to check that proper visas for entry to the United Kingdom exist. Consequently, there have been massive fines. In the past couple of months, there have been fines amounting to about £200,000 since the Act has been in operation.
I question the effect of the clause and whether Eurotunnel or concessionaires will enjoy any benefits as a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will cover that point in his closing remarks. Certainly, it will be wrong and unfair to the port and ferries for special immigration and Customs clearances to be conducted unless the port of Dover has similar procedures. Surely that is only fair to ferries.

Mr. Snape: The amendment is significant, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in detail. There is confusion about the number of people who will use the terminal at Waterloo once the Channel tunnel scheme is completed. Of course, part of the confusion arose from British Rail's self-inflicted wounds. It originally published an estimate of the number of passengers who will use the terminal in 2003. It said that the estimate will not reach the number of passengers who used Waterloo in the 1960s. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will tell me if I have that date wrong. The figures were widely publicised and appeared in the exhibition.

Mr. Holland: It was 1993 and 1971.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend reminds me that it was 1993 and 1971, for which I am grateful.
The figures appeared in the exhibition that British Rail management subsequently staged at Waterloo station. They had to take them away and confess that, somehow, they managed to count Windsor line passengers twice. It

is not for me to defend some of the more eccentric decisions that British Rail managment makes. Indeed, I pride myself on my ability to criticise such decisions. Such confusion does not help its case, or the amendments. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clear up the matter by giving some accurate estimates of the likely number of passengers who will pass through the terminal once the project gets under way.
My hon. Friend talked about the proposed resignalling of the area. He will be aware—no doubt the Minister will tell us — that approval for such a proposal has already been granted. I think I am right in saying that a new signal box will be erected near Surbiton to control the Waterloo station area and a considerable number of route miles also. That, plus the provision of the flyovers and the extra tracks within Waterloo station—the new terminal — will take care of any projected increase in traffic resulting from the scheme. Again, the Minister is the man who has such material at his fingertips and a whole battery of experts to tell him when he has not, so I have no doubt that he will be able to clarify that point.
I was intrigued by the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He paid tribute to the Customs officers at Dover. It is remarkable listening to hon. Members pay tribute to trade unionists. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am advised that it was the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). It is remarkable that Conservative Members are paying public tribute to trade unionists. A couple of weeks ago, when there was an industrial dispute at Dover, they were treading on each other's heads to get into the Table Office to table early-day motions deploring those disputes and attacking the unions for being involved in them.
It just goes to show that there is nothing like a fairly marginal seat to make the advantages of trade unionism even more apparent to Conservative Members than they are to us. [Interruption.] It is a temporary phase. It illustrates the point even better. Regardless of one's majority, if they are one's constituents, one seeks to defend their right to industrial action, although, presumably, being a Conservative Member, he will vote to restrict everybody else's rights in due course when the latest bout of anti-union legislation appears.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Snape: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take me down that track, if I may use the industrial metaphor. We might be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he does.

Mr. Holland: I wish to take up a point regarding signalling and the amount of traffic that may be generated. From Mr. Southgate I have gleaned that resignalling might go ahead. I am not sure whether that refers to what has already been done or to more extensive resignalling. Traffic estimates have not publicly been modified by British Rail. After all, senior management concerned with the project says that, because of resignalling, there could be up to a 50 per cent. increase in the number of trains. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is incumbent on the Minister to take that fact into account and to make plain to the House what the implications will be.

Mr. Snape: I can tell my hon. Friend, because I take an interest in such matters, that the present signalling technology in and around Waterloo dates from the 1930s.
I can assure him that it is much more interesting than the future, modernistic push-button stuff, but nevertheless, it is soon to be removed. I have no doubt that the Minister will give the figures on the modernistic push-button stuff to which I have referred to the nearest tail lamp or to the nearest electrical multiple unit. Any resignalling scheme would considerably increase capacity in or around Waterloo. I am sure that we shall hear the exact figures from the Minister.
7.30 pm
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dover — I have got his constituency right on this occasion. He made a constituency plea with a vengeance in saying that if trains are to have on-board Customs, ships must have them also. I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a slight difference between those modes of transport. Of course it is permissible for hon. Members of all parties to make pleas of special constituency interest — we all do it — but it is fascinating to hear a Conservative Member argue against a more effective deployment of staff. Although on-train Customs clearance is vital in the opinion of many of us, it cashes in on the inherent flexibility and advantage of the through trains between, for example, Paris and Brussels, and Manchester or even Birmingham. To say that because ships cannot have such clearance, trains should not either, is the type of restrictive practice that might have been greeted by applause from Peter Sellers in his parody of a shop steward, Fred Kite, in the 1950s.
Again it is surprising, although understandable because it is a specific constituency plea, to hear a Conservative Member argue for such an equally inefficient use of resources simply because his own constituency might somehow be disadvantaged as the through trains from Paris to Birmingham thunder underneath Dover, rather than everybody, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law, being tipped out, so that those of his constituents who happen to be trade unionists can rifle through their baggage.

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a minute; I have not finished with him yet. I am not quite sure how he will explain to his own divisional association his deviation from the habits and Customs of the Conservative party. However, I shall give him the opportunity now.

Mr. Shaw: With deference and respect to the hon. Gentleman, I advise him that my trade unionists in Dover are concerned about the sound Conservative principle of fair competition.

Mr. Snape: I do not see anything especially fair or competitive in denying a new mode of transport the flexibility that would be to its advantage. The Conservative party used to stand for competition but those days are now gone. To deny that flexibility to the new mode of travel does not seem an inherently Conservative virtue. However, I have always found virtue to be considerably lacking in the Conservative party. I hope that the Minister will give us more details about the two issues that have already been raised.
Lords amendment No. 20 is welcome so far as it goes. We are extremely grateful because it at least amplifies and illustrates the amount of concern that is felt in both

Houses and across party lines that on-train Customs facilities should be provided. Like my hon Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), I car not see any good reason why on-train Customs facilities should not be provided on trains travelling to and from London on certain trains, perhaps at specific times of the day or night. I was not aware of the position in France and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who is much better travelled than I, for pointing out the position on the other side of the Channel. Perhaps I may appeal to the hon. Member for Dover on grounds of pure British chauvinism, which normally appeals enormously to Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister will not tell the House that the French can do it but that we cannot.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: This amendment is to be welcomed, although I seek clarification on the issue which the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East, (Mr. Snape) cavalierly brushed over, which is whether equal rights on Customs clearance will apply to all cross-channel operators. The Minister needs to be asked some questions about that. It is highly welcome that we have now introduced into this country the principle of on-train Customs clearance, which will make for a faster and better service. However, it should not be welcomed if it is to be an exclusive privilege for Eurotunnel. As I understand it, clause 11 envisages that operators other than Eurotunnel will be able to organise on-train Customs clearance. However, we should probe the Minister's thinking and I should like to ask him some specific questions.
First, and in general terms, to what extent has he already sought the co-operation of and had consultations with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise about the drafting of the clauses, and their consenting arrangements for them? My experience of the Customs service is that one can often get a Customs officer down to the water, but one cannot necessarily make him clear the baggage at the speed at which most people would like to see it cleared. Customs officers are sometimes a reluctant service when it conies to innovation. Therefore, I press the Minister to cell us how far he has got in ensuring that Customs officers are not only willing but enthusiastic about the new arrangements.
Secondly, I ask the Minister for guidance as to what is likely to happen should, for example, the Sally Line, which operates from Ramsgate in my constituency, wish to seek boat trains with on-train controls under clause 11. To a large extent the decision on that seems to be left to the Minister. On what criteria will the Minister decide? Under the clause he clearly has it in mind to give his permission for Eurotunnel trains. Indeed, that is why this clause is included in the Bill. However, ordinary boat trains, using ordinary British Rail rolling stock, travel to the ports every day. Is there any physical or engineering reason why those trains cannot have on-train Customs control?

Mr. Snape: It is not for me to answer the Minister's question for him. However, I have a pretty good idea that he may give a similar reply, except that his will be more lucid than mine. Would it not be a little stupid to have on-train Customs on boat trains going to Ramsgate when, to requote my own words, husbands, fathers, mothers, kids, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law will be detrained at Ramsgate and embark on a boat prior to sailing across the Channel? Would that not make more sense in the case of a through journey from Paris to Birmingham, than for a comparatively small journey,


which must be broken, from London to Paris, via Ramsgate, to wherever the Sally Line decamps its passengers on the other side of the Channel?

Mr. Aitken: It is not for the first time that I feel that the hon. Gentleman has something against Ramsgate.

Mr. Snape: It is the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).

Mr. Aitken: There is no need to be personal. I do my best for Ramsgate and for its future Customs controls.
I simply want to know the criteria on which the Minister will decide when a request comes in for an international service on ordinary trains. Will he be willing to grant his permission in principle? Is it a question of the physical arrangements? What are the general criteria?
I notice that individual Customs officers seem to have a wide power of decision-making. If I have understood it correctly, a Customs officer may suddenly decide that he will not allow a particular train to be cleared on an on-train basis. The discretion of the Customs officer seems to be quite wide. Under subsection (3)(a), if the train is very crowded, for example, can a Customs officer say, "Sorry, I am not clearing that one today"? I seek clarification as to how extensive the individual decision-making powers of Customs officers are. If I have read the clause correctly, a Customs officer can simply say, "Things are difficult on this train. I will not clear it." That would be somewhat disadvantageous to those who got on the train believing that they would have a thorough immigration Customs clearance during their journey.
I note that clause 11(4) states that an order under section 11 of the proposed Act can impose charges on the operator. I find that rather worrying because Eurotunnel is paying for its own policing arrangements. I think there is something unsatisfactory about a private company paying for the police and therefore deciding how many police will be around at the Channel tunnel terminal. I also believe it unsatisfactory that Eurotunnel or any other cross-channel operator can decide on how many Customs officers there will be on offer on a train because they are paying the bill. We should have a national service, whether the police or Customs, operating according to national criteria and standards. In that case the Government should lay down those standards and pay for them. However, if standards can be varied because the man who pays the piper chooses the tune, an extremely different quality of Customs service could be provided on the trains.
With those reservations—which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will ease with his answers—I give this clause a general welcome, providing, of course, that we stick to the line that there is fair competition for all cross-channel operators and not a special provision for Eurotunnel.

Mr. David Mitchell: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would require the Government to provide Customs and immigration controls on board any train passing through the tunnel if that was wanted by the operator. That would affect shuttle trains as well as through trains.
Clearly, controls on board the shuttle trains are not a practical proposition. In any case, Eurotunnel does not

want such controls because the controls are to be juxtaposed at the point of departure at the tunnel terminals.
Presumably the hon. Member for Vauxhall is concerned about the trains at Waterloo. However, if that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment I must say that it is defective. In effect, the hon. Member for Vauxhall has asked why controls cannot be provided on trains to Waterloo if Customs and immigration controls can be provided on trains beyond London. The two situations are different.
The Government accept that on-train controls are probably essential to the commercial viability of services bound for places beyond London. Therefore, although on-train controls are estimated to require half as many Customs officers again as are required for conventional static controls, the Government are prepared to accept the extra call on the manpower resources implicit in clause 12. However, the Government reserve the right to charge British Rail for those extra resources. The conditions in subsection (2) of clause 12 must also be satisfied. In part that answers my hon. Friend the member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to whose case I shall return.
When considering trains to Waterloo, the circumstances are considerably different. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall reflects for a moment he will realise that what we need to do is to ensure that people have as agreeable, fast and efficient a means of getting from one capital city to another as possible. The best way to achieve that is to ensure that people have an agreeable journey.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall should envisage the likely effect of on-train controls. Suppose the hon. Member for Vauxhall goes to Paris for a business meeting. He gets into the train at Waterloo, which is much less inconvenient than charging out to Heathrow, humping baggage around and all that palaver. The hon. Gentleman has the window seat and is comfortably ensconced. The sherry is brought round before his meal and the soup has just been brought to the table when along comes a Customs officer who says, "Excuse me, sir. Would you be kind enough to identify your baggage'?" The hon. Gentleman must get up and in so doing disturbs the gentleman sitting next to him. Indeed, he probably slops his soup. He must go down the carriage, identify his baggage to the Customs officer and then return to his seat. The same thing will happen to everyone else down the train. It might well be that before such an exercise is over people will be wishing that they had airport-type controls whereby those who have nothing to declare can simply walk through the hall carrying their baggage as they have to do when they leave the train and the platform.

Mr. Holland: The scenario is very touching. On the extremely rare occasions when I have travelled by train on the continent and had lunch the Customs inspector has said, "May I see your passport? Have you anything to declare? No? Well, have a good meal." There is an alternative scenario to the Minister's point.
The Minister must appreciate that the trains in question are one and a half times the length of the standard inter-city train and will carry up to 770 passengers at a time. Therefore, it is not just a matter of getting off the train with the luggage and strolling through Customs. Individuals will stroll through Customs with 770 other people. There will not be the same filtering effect as there is at an airport. Whatever we think of the carousel luggage


arrangement at an airport—indeed, if we get the tunnel, lack of a carousel is one of the things that will make Channel tunnel traffic extremely competitive—the fact that people wait for individual luggage means that passengers are filtered as they approach Customs. But at Waterloo the lack of on-train services may leave 540 people swearing their heads off at the Government's failure to consider that passengers must past other passengers to get out.
I believe that the Minister has shown us precisely that we need more public scrutiny and evaluation of this issue. We are having an interesting exchange on a substantive matter. However, we are not given any opportunity to consider this issue save for one further amendment concerning a report that British Rail may have to make by 1989. This discussion strengthens the case for that amendment.

Mr. Mitchell: It should not be automatically assumed that, for travellers from Paris to London, it is more attractive to have on-train controls than to have off-train controls.
I accept that, when travelling between one continental city and another, there are few on-train controls. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, that state of affairs derives from the fact that there has been a great deal of standardisation of duties and a whole variety of other things between one continental country and another. However, there is no such standardisation between us and continental countries. Therefore, the benefits of smuggling are much greater for people travelling into this country than they are for those travelling between one continental country and another.
We must also consider the problems regarding checks on rabies. I am aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is anxious to ensure that there is a whole series of ways in which we will be more strict about this matter than they are on the continent. It is right and proper that that strictness should continue. I am sure that Labour Members would be the first to demand that it should continue. Therefore, it is not as easy to make on-train controls without some degree of disturbance. That disturbance is worth making on longer distance journeys, but on the shorter journey from Paris to London such disturbance may not be worth while.

Mr. Holland: We are members of the Common Market. I appreciate that, a quarter of a century on, we do not have an integrated system within the Market and we do not have an "internal market". Indeed, people wonder whether we are in the Common Market when they are faced with border controls, passport control and so forth. With regard to variations in duty and VAT variations, whether there is 5p, 15p, 50p of £1 duty on a bottle of wine is not the point. We appreciate that rabies and drugs are of serious concern. Customs officers are not looking for someone who happens to bring back half a bottle of Scotch, but who has forgotten that they have left it in their luggage. Customs officers are searching for drugs or for people committing serious offences. Such offences must be dealt with.
I believe that we need more consideration of these issues if the Bill is to go through the House today. I hope that the Minister will take on board my remarks so that we can obtain a proper evaluation of what will otherwise cause considerable congestion at Waterloo.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Vauxhall interrupted before I said that there are requirements for Customs and Excise to seach carefully for drugs. That means that we must have the facilities on a train to carry out a certain degree of searching.. That is an added problem.
On a shorter journey from London to Paris, such searches may well involve further disturbance to passengers who have been identified as those who require further searching. All that problem evaporates when people going through the green channel make a declaration of nothing to declare. X per cent. of them are then pulled out by Customs at its discretion for further searching. That can all be easily done in tin facilities at Waterloo with the minimum of disturbance and distraction to the other passengers who are not involved in such checks. The advantage is that it is a matter for the railway companies and Eurotunnel to take that into account.

Mr. Holland: When someone is suspected of having concealed drugs internally and so on, one does not need a passenger terminal at Waterloo to be able to deal with that. One needs offices and facilities to which persons who have been restrained on the train can be taken and where they can be searched.
The other point that did not emerge from the exchanges on signalling is that signalling improvements could increase the number of trains—my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is quite right about that. However, they will also increase the number of passengers using Waterloo. I seriously suggest to the Minister that by building in the assumption that there will not be on-train passenger inspection for Brussels —London or Paris—one is likely to create a bottleneck at Walerloo that will mean a deterioration of the service.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to his concerns in that area. I shall bear them in mind and discuss them with British Rail in due course. There is nothing in the Government's proposals that prevents on-train controls to Waterloo if requested by British Rail, if the Customs and Excise can be satisfied on the availability of adequate facilities for its purposes. It is for British Rail to judge which is the most appropriate way.
I was trying to tell the hon. Gentleman earlier that it is not automatically—game, set and match—true that it is beneficial to have on-train controls between Paris and Waterloo. A judgment must be made, and we shall be better able to form one as time passes and as we gain more information about use, type of passengers and so on.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—if he were not, he would have been corrected by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East — about the advantages of resignalling, the improvement in train times that that would enable one to have, the increase in capacity and so on. I do not dissent from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that equal rights should apply to all operators and questioned the extent of Customs and Excise co-operation. We have had some initial discussions with Customs and Excise, which has been helpful in explaining its requirements, and these matters must be taken further before a final conclusion can be reached.
My hon. Friend asked about the boat trains for Sally Line and said that it has ordinary British Rail stock. He


will realise from previous discussions the problem that that poses, as one must have some special facilities for the trains to be able to carry out Customs controls on them. In principle, there is no reason why an approach made by Sally Line for special facilities on the trains should not be considered on its merits. I am not sure whether the chamber of commerce of Ramsgate will thank my hon. Friend for such a proposition, as it would mean that all those uncles, aunts, ladies and various friends of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would not be able to go on to the beach and spend their money in the shops, because they would be in bond going through from ship to London. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be anxious that they should get out of the train and spend their money in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) raised the issue of equal treatment for the ports. The Government have given explicit assurances that, in the area of frontier controls, the tunnel and ports will be treated even-handedly. That is set out in detail in the Department of Transport's letter to the British Ports Association, reproduced in appendix 32 to the special report of the Commons Select Committee. I do not think that my hon. Friend would want me to quote the whole of that, but if he looks it up he will find it a cause of considerable satisfaction in the matter on which he is pressing me.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19 agreed to, [One with Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 14

CONTRACT LAW AND ARBITRATION LAW

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 12, line 47, after first "notice" insert
and
(b) any Concession agreement other than one so specified shall be taken to be valid and effective at any time on or after the date on which it is expressed to take effect;

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 38.

Mr. Mitchell: These are tidying-up amendments. They remove references to concession leases from the clause, and that takes them out of the jurisdiction of the international arbitral tribunal; they will, instead, be subject to English law and the English courts. There is also one technical amendment providing for agreement supplementing a concessionary agreement to the value.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

SUPERVISION BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 14, line 35, after "time" insert

"(or, in a situation which in his opinion is or may be dangerous, at any time)"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 43 and 88.

Mr. Mitchell: Subsection (3) of clause 16 confers on duly authorised agents of the intergovernmental com-mission and the safety authority various powers to enter the tunnel system for the purpose of carrying out inspections, examinations and investigations and to obtain information. These powers are similar to certain of the powers of inspectors acting under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. However, there are some useful provisions of section 20 of the 1974 Act—namely, power to take samples, to dismantle, to test and detain articles and substances—which are not included at present in subsection (3) of clause 16. These amendments fill that gap.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 17

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND SAFETY AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 15, leave out lines 39 and 40.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 48, 50 to 52, 56, 58, 62, 65, 66 and 73.

Mr. Mitchell: These are technical amendments concerned with clarifying the way in which the legal status of regulations of the intergovernmental commission is reflected in the Bill. As a result of this clarification it becomes possible to delete certain provisions as superfluous.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

8 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 45, together with the other Lords amendments and amendments to the Lords amendments.

Mr. David Mitchell: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the right hon. Member for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I should explain to the House that we are in the same situation as we were in on an earlier amendment. In other words, the debate takes place on amendment No. 45 and it will be appropriate to discuss the Lords amendments on the Amendment Paper, together with amendments (a), (b) and (c).

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 15, line 41, leave out "or direction" and insert "direction or certificate".

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

"(4) The Concessionaires shall not convey any passengers by means of shuttle trains at any time when there is not in force a certificate issued by the Intergovernmental Commission stating—

(a) that the Commission are satisfied with a code of practice relating to the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled which has for the time being been adopted by the Concessionaires; and
(b) that the code of practice has been published in a manner approved by the Commission.

(5) Such a code of practice must contain—

(a) a statement of any description of such persons not intended to be conveyed by means of shuttle trains, with reasons;
(b) details of provision for ensuring the safety of such persons in the tunnel system, in particular the safety in the event of an emergency of such persons being conveyed by means of shuttle trains; and
(c) information relating to such other matters affecting the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled as the Commission may specify.

(6) Contravention of the restriction imposed by subsection (4) above may be restrained by an order of the High Court made on an application by the Intergovernmental Commission."

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 10, at end insert
`and after consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee'.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
'(5) Such a code of practice shall be drawn up in consultation with organisations of disabled people and shall require:
(a) Provisions for the conveyance of all categories of disabled persons; and include;'.

Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, line 12, after `persons,' insert
`who in exceptional circumstances are'.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that I shall have the leave of the House to speak again following the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).

Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise to speak to the amendments (a), (b) and (c) in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which are deeply important to Britain's 5·5 million disabled people and their families.
On 6 July, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Transport asking if he would
make provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill for adequate facilities to ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of people with disabilities travelling on trains through the proposed Channel tunnel.
In reply, the Minister of State said that Eurotunnel's original submission to the Governments showed that it realised the need to make provision on their shuttle services for people with disabilities. He said it was now working closely with representatives of disabled people's organisations to establish their requirements and to see how they could best be met. British Rail, he said, had a firm commitment to providing for the needs of passengers with disabilities on all its major services; and the safety authority would need to be satisfied by the arrangements proposed. He concluded:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient co consider amendments Nos. 49, 53 to 55, 57, 59 to 60. No. 61, in clause 18, in page 16, line 38, at end insert—
Provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill is therefore unnecessary."—[Official Report, 6 July 1987: Vol. 119, c. 17.]
Shortly afterwards the Minister of State wrote to me to say that the Government had changed their mind and that the Bill would be amended. The Bill was then amended in another place and I spoke urgently to the organisations representing disabled people about the adequacy of the Government's amendment. I found that they were anything but satisfied with the amendment, leaving me in some doubt about that part of the Minister's reply to me of 6 July which said that Eurotunnel was
working closely with representatives of disabled people's organisations to establish their requirements".
That ministerial statement, made to this House, very soon proved to be highly questionable. Let me quote, for example, a letter I received yesterday from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. It says:
We think the Government's new Clause could result in disabled people being refused access to the shuttle trains. We doubt that this is what the government intended but it is crucial that the clause is amended when the Bill returns to the Commons on…21 July.
The letter went on:
The first thing we need to ensure is that the code of practice is drawn up in consultation with disabled people and their organisations.
The amendments on the Order Paper in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends were drafted in full consultation with the organisations concerned with disabled people and represent their view of what the House should now decide. My amendments will mean deleting a provision that could be used to prohibit people from travelling on the shuttle trains. That is a very serious matter in the view of the organisations I have consulted, and the Minister must now know that to be incontrovertibly true. At the very least the Minister must agree with the first of my amendments, which provides for consultation with the disabled persons transport advisory committee. It was the Department that set up the committee and it should be at once inconceivable and indefensible for it not to be consulted.
The House needs to know whether the Minister can assure us that the code of practice will not be agreed by the Government unless the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which represents both transport operators and disabled people, is satisfied that it meets the needs of disabled passengers. I urge the Minister to give that assurance in the terms in which I have put it to him.
As the House knows, people with disabilities want to be a part of and not apart from society. To make that possible was the principal purpose of my own legislation for disabled people, which was so widely supported on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. For new laws to disadvantage disabled people would be unforgiveable and I most strongly urge the Minister to respond positively to amendments which, as I have made clear, have the total support of their organisations.

Mr. Aitken: I rise at this quiet moment to tell the House and my hon. Friend the Minister that the amendments so ably moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) have cross-party support and would be welcome. The right hon. Gentleman's work for disabled people and his tenure of office as Minister for the Disabled are well known and respected throughout the House.
The right hon. Gentleman may be a little surprised to know that he has run into one of the hurdles in his own field that many of us who have been studying the Channel Tunnel Bill for a long time have encountered before. That hurdle is an announcement by Eurotunnel that it is carrying out consultations. However, when we look closely we see that no such consultations, at least in any meaningful sense, have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the apparent lack of effective consultation with disabled groups despite an announcement that such consultations were taking place. I am sorry to say that is characteristic of the unfortunate management style and tactics of Eurotunnel in the past and they still prevail.
If the Bill went through without the right hon. Gentleman's amendment it would be a most unacceptable piece of anti-disabled people discrimination. In certain circumstances disabled people could conceivably be denied access to the trains. The very least that we can do is accept the right hon. Gentleman's first amendment. I have a further point, but as the right hon. Gentleman is not as familiar with the subject as those of us who have been on the Committee he may not appreciate it. If we look closely at the safety measures on these trains we see that one of the most outstanding and worrying features is the apparent lack of exit space for passengers who might have to get out of their cars in a hurry in the event of a fire or explosion or some such disaster on the train. This has troubled people who have studied the matter, and we have always been fobbed off with the announcement that a body called, I think, the Inter governmental Safety Commission or some such elaborately-named quango will get it all right on the night.
When one looks at the plans one sees problems that are real enough for ordinary people getting out of their cars and entering very narrow corridors and shoving and pushing against one another in an emergency. Those problems are real enough for healthy people, but for disabled people in wheelchairs the safety measures and the

exits could make matters even more difficult and restrictive and perhaps positively dangerous. I should like to flag this anxiety in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. If Eurotunnel and the safety commission have to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, there is some hope that the sort of fears that I have expressed can be overcome. If the amendment is rejected, there is no hope of that worry being buried. This is a very reasonable amendment and it was expertly moved. I support it and I believe that many of my hon. Friends, if they had been present, would have supported it also. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. David Mitchell: It may help the House if, before I address the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I explain the purpose and background of Lords amendment No. 45. The amendment was tabled by the Government on Third Reading in another place in response to a proposal on Report by the noble Baroness Lady Stedman. Its purpose is to require Eurotunnel to draw up and have approved by the Inter-governmental Commission before it begins to operate shuttle trains a code of practice relating to the carriage of disabled people. Once the code has been drawn up, it must be published in a manner which the commission must also approve. Certain requirements as to what the code of practice may contain are included in subsection (5) of the amendment.
Whereas the Government proposed the amendment in response to proposals by a Back Bencher in another place, the principle of including a provision of this type in the Bill was accepted by the Government from the time that it was proposed. Equally, we had no difficulty in obtaining the agreement of Eurotunnel or the French Government. It is entirely common ground that it is right that Eurotunnel should provide for the carriage of disabled people and that that should be written into the Bill.
I now come to the substance of the amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. Amendment (a) and the first part of the amendment (b) deal with the need to consult representative organisations of disabled people about the drawing up of the code and the manner of its publication. The Government do not believe it is necessary to write these provisions into the Bill. However, I can tell the House that Eurotunnel has undertaken, in drawing up the code, to consult thoroughly representatives of disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as to the content and manner of its publication before submitting the code and the publication arrangements to the Inter govern-mental Commission for approval.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The assurance that I have asked for, after very close consultation with the organisations of and for disabled people, is that the code of practice will not be agreed by the Government unless the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is satisfied that it meets the needs of disabled passengers. Can the Minister give that assurance? Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. Mitchell: There will be thorough consultation with representatives of disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The proposals which flow from that have to be approved by the Inter-governmental Commission. That should reassure the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the assurances that have been


given and which I have conveyed to the House and the right hon. Gentleman today, will be sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that we have taken the matter very seriously. I hope that that shows that we have taken the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and can satisfy him of the reasonable extent that we can move in terms of legislation.
8.15 pm
The remaining amendments — the second part of amendment (b) and amendment (c) — concern the question of which categories of disabled people Eurotunnel should carry and which categories it will be permitted not to carry. To put this question in its context, I should remind the House that Eurotunnel's shuttle service is a vehicle-carrying service. It does not carry lone passengers, whether disabled or not, so when we consider the carriage of disabled people, we are talking of disabled people who are drivers or passengers in cars, coaches or minibuses. Subsection (5) of Lords amendment No. 61 then permits the concessionaires to exclude from the code of practice certain categories of disabled people, but if so, they must indicate why.
Let me make it quite clear that this does not mean Eurotunnel will be permitted to exclude wheelchair users or any other major group of people with disabilities. On the contrary, our intention is that disabled people should be carried on a full and equal basis with other passengers and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe would agree with that. The purpose of subsection (5) is to permit Eurotunnel not to carry those categories of people whose needs in terms of facilities and equipment are so complex that the concessionaires could not reasonably be expected to carry them on shuttle trains, and they must give details of how they will ensure the safety of disabled persons in the tunnel system.
This indeed is the heart of the question. Throughout the proceedings of this Bill, the need to achieve the safe operation of the shuttle trains and their passengers has been a recurring theme. I do not think it would be consistent with the will of Parliament, expressed so often in debate and in Select Committee, for Eurotunnel to be required to carry passengers who could not be safely evacuated in case of emergency. That is the key point that the Inter-governmental Commission will want to consider. It is only in that narrow area that the question arises of Eurotunnel not carrying disabled persons.
I have not the slightest reason to doubt Eurotunnel's good intentions in this matter. Subsection (5)(a) is not intended to be a wide-open loophole to frustrate the purpose of this amendment. However, in any case, the matter is not left to Eurotunnel alone. As I explained, it has undertaken to consult representative bodies, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, in drawing up the code, and this statutory committee, whose membership comprises people who are expert in both disability and transport, will be able to ensure that a fair and proper balance is struck. When the code is submitted to the Inter-governmental Commission, it will be for the commission to ensure that no disabled people are unreasonably excluded from using the tunnel, and to take the advice of the safety authority as to whether the arrangements for ensuring the safety of those who are to be carried are satisfactory.
I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and the undertakings that I have been able to give the House, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will feel able not to press his amendments.

Mr. Aitken: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once. He cannot do so a second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 45 agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 46 to 62 agreed to.

Clause 19

BYELAWS OF THE CONCESSIONAIRES

Lords Amendment: No. 63, in page 17, line 37, leave out "3" and insert "4".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 64.

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires bylaws particularly those bearing on safety.

Mr. Snape: I shall put two points to the Minister. Will he confirm that the amendment will have no adverse impact on clause 19(1)(f) which states:
regulating the use or conveyance of vehicles and prohibiting or regulating the conveyance of goods other than vehicles, in particular dangerous goods;"?
The Minister will be aware that in clause 18 the concessionaires are not common carriers.
I have two reasons for making these points. The Minister will be aware of the strong concern felt by all of us including those who support the project about safety in the tunnel system. He will be aware of the concern, much of which was inspired by competitors in the cross-Channel business, and concern expressed by many witnesses before the Select Committee about safety and the suggested conveyance of dangerous goods through the tunnel system.
The Minister will confirm that dangerous goods are prohibited. Will he comment on the fact that, despite the fact such conveyance is prohibited under the terms of clause 19 and the amendment, at the moment one cross-Channel ferry company persists in showing a video of a train fire that took place in the Summit tunnel on the former Lancashire and Yorkshire railway system a few years ago. Will the Minister confirm that the showing of such a video is a deliberate distortion of the fact that the fire in that tunnel was caused by the collapse of the wheel system on a petrol tanker? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that neither that type of tanker nor any other will be permitted to travel through the tunnel system?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that this propaganda is still being shown on cross-Channel ferries, supposedly on safety grounds. I should have thought that, given that later this week we are to hear about the report on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, on good taste grounds alone such a video would not be shown to passengers crossing the Channel. I do not know whether the Minister agrees that to expect good taste from Sealink would be the equivalent of expecting culture from


Hollywood. We shall not get any good taste. For the benefit of those using cross-channel ferries, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the terms of these amendments, that video is deliberately misleading and is a scurrilous attempt to play unreasonably on people's fears and that these amendments and this clause specifically preclude the carriage of dangerous goods through the tunnel system?

Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires byelaws, particularly bearing in mind safety. They do not impinge directly on the question of goods to be carried. It is for the concessionaire to propose appropriate measures for the prohibition or control of dangerous goods in the tunnel system. Their proposals will be considered by the Inter-governmental Commission. The commission will be advised by the safety authority which has recently established the dangerous goods working group to prepare its position on the transport of dangerous goods through the tunnel in the light of existing national and international requirement and practice. We must wait for that report before we have a definitive list of prohibited goods. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the circumstances which he has described — displaying a film of what happened in the Summit tunnel—have no relevance to the position in terms of the Channel tunnel. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having taken this opportunity to expose what I imagine is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 66 agreed to.

Clause 28

RESTORATION OF LAND ON ABANDONMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION

Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 22, line 14, leave out from "make" to end of line 25 and insert
in relation to any land on which work has been done under this Act a scheme for putting it into such a condition as the scheme may provide and shall put it into a condition in accordance with the scheme.".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 152 and 153.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments tidy up provisions dealing with the restoration of construction sites and land and restoration in the event of abandonment of a project. They were accepted by the relevant petitioners before the Select Committee of another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32

COMPETITION, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 23, line 34, leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 36 and insert
be deemed to be interconnected bodies corporate for the purposes of the Act of 1976 in relation to any specified channel tunnel agreement, any specified class of channel tunnel agreements, or all such agreements;".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendents Nos. 69 to 72.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are essentially technical. They facilitate the application of competition legislation to the concessionaires and will ensure that the procedures to which they will be subject will be closely aligned with those applicable to their competitors.

Mr. David Shaw: I tried to catch your predecessor's eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but just failed to do so. I wanted to speak on the amendments to clause 2, but I think that I may represent my constituency well by speaking about some of the aspects which could be related to clause 2 on this clause, which deals with competition.
In as much as competition concerns consumers and taxpayers, it is of immense concern to my constituents that no public money should go into this project. They are concerned that not only this Government but successive Governments should continue to protect the taxpayers and consumers. There would be unfair competition between the tunnel and the ferries if the tunnel were bailed out by some form of subsidy or sold if it could not meet its financial obligations.
There are many financial weaknesses in the present project. They stem from high fixed costs and, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, the unrealistic and unreliable passenger and revenue projections for this project. Referring to the original Channel tunnel project, Coopers and Lybrand Associates, in its 31 May 1973 report, forecast on page 21 that, without a tunnel, there would be some 29,778,000 passengers using airlines in 1980 to go to and from the United Kingdom and Europe. The actual number was closer to 20 million passengers. There was a massive over-forecast by the traffic consultants who supplied the figures to Coopers and Lybrand.
Coopers and Lybrand's original forecast suggested that 14 per cent. of airline passengers would transfer to a Channel tunnel if it were built. Because the airline passenger rate was not as high as it should have been, Eurotunnel was forced to put in its 1987 prospectus a figure of 18 per cent. transferring. One wonders whether it was necessary to tweak the financial projections to achieve the right result. I was informed only at the weekend that the latest freight revenue projections show that, far from increasing, there has been a small downturn this year of some 3 per cent. in the freight revenue from ferries. Rail passengers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The fault may be mine, but I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Member is saying to the contents of the Lords amendments. He should relate his remarks more closely to them, or resume his seat.

Mr. Shaw: I shall try to relate my remarks more closely, as you suggest, Sir. My lack of experience of the House is to blame. I suggest that fair competition is essential. We need fair competition in terms not only of revenue, but, dare I suggest, money raised in the City of London and other such places. Without such fair competition between—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say again to the hon. Member that I find little connection between his remarks and the Lords amendments.

Mr. Shaw: The Lords amendments mention the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Having made many representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission during my former merchant banking career, I suggest that the MMC, when considering competition, looks to very wide and varied aspects of information. Eurotunnel's prospectus refers to a number of exemptions under various stock exchange requirements and others. This means that information on the shuttle's engineering feasibility and its practicability is not provided. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were considering the tunnel on lines equivalent to the ferries or ports, it would surely be extremely worried about that lack of information.
In 1974, in a report on the Channel tunnel, Accountancy Age said that, although the tunnel was expected to carry 14 million passengers by 1990, the big expansion in journeys to and from the continent would be in air traffic, increasing from 16 million in 1971 to 41 million by 1990. All the 1974 forecast figures about passengers were wrong. Even in 1987, the ferries were carrying only 14 million passengers. I am concerned that, if the tunnel gets into financial difficulties, it will not be able to compete on fair grounds with the ferries. There may be some adjustment to the normal competition rules, which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would consider.
8.30 pm
I feel that I should conclude on a matter that you may feel stretches the imagination somewhat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of whether I am speaking to the amendment. The British Rail contract recently signed by
"38A.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Railways Board to prepare a plan stating measures which the Board propose to take, and any proposals as to measures which the Board consider ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France, with the aim of securing—

(a) the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom; and
(b) an increase in the proportion of the passengers and goods carried between places in the United Kingdom and places outside the United Kingdom that is carried by international through services.

(2) The measures referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) measures relating to the operation of international through services;
(b) measures relating to the carrying out of works or other developments connected with international through services (including collection and distribution centres for goods and inland clearance depots); and
(c) measures relating to the provision or improvement of facilities or other services connected with international through services.

(3) The Railways Board—

(a) shall prepare the plan under this section not later than 31st December 1989;
(b) shall keep the plan under review and from time to time revise it; and
(c) shall cause the plan and any revisions of it to be published in such manner as they think fit.

(4) In preparing the plan and any revisions of it the Railways Board shall have regard to the financial resources likely to be available to them and to any restrictions likely to be imposed on them with respect to the application of such resources.
(5) The duties imposed by this section shall not apply at any time when the original Concession, as defined by section 1(4) of this Act, has expired or terminated and no new Concession is in operation.
Eurotunnel should be examined closely by the public. Certainly, many people in my constituency of Dover will be extremely concerned to ensure that that contract is fair vis-a-vis the ferries, and vis-a-vis Eurotunnel and British Rail. We hope that that can be examined, and will be published very shortly, before the publication of the prospectus in October.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance in enabling me to raise a number of matters of concern to the port and ferry people of Dover.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have noted my hon. Friend's points carefully. I can reassure him that no public money will go into the Eurotunnel project.
Eurotunnel traffic forecasts are a matter for Eurotunnel, which must justify its project to the investors in the financial markets of the world. They are not underwritten or audited in any way by the Government; they are a matter for Eurotunnel, as a private sector operator.
As for competition, there are certain intrinsic advantages in each method of transport. They will appeal to different groups of people. That is the free working of the market, and I do not believe that we should interfere with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 96 to 100 and 102 agreed to.

New Clause

RAILWAYS BOARD'S PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SERVICES

Insert the following new Clause after clause 38—

(6) In this section "international through services" means services for the carriage of passengers or goods by rail by way of the tunnel system. other than shuttle services.".

Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. David Mitchell]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall consider the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 23, at end insert—
'(aa) shall take account of the social and congestion costs arising from excess use of Waterloo as a terminal;
(b), in line 26, leave out 'in such manner as they think fit' and insert
'and laid before both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Holland: I trust that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments. I appreciate that clause 38A(9) is concerned with provision for the improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment is clearly related to that, inasmuch as improvement of the international through services would, I believe, be very likely, given the degree of congestion which will probably occur at Waterloo. I also feel that the plan required by the new clause, which the British Railways Board should prepare not later than 31 December 1989, should not be published simply in such a manner "as they think fit", but should be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I shall not detain the House for long, because I know that other pressing matters command the attention of those hon. Members who are not in the Chamber to consider congestion at Waterloo. However, this is a serious issue. We debated earlier the question of traffic flows, and what kind of traffic is likely to be generated. I have raised the point that the Gibbs report was based on a past assumption of passenger use at Waterloo, and that several of the projections now given involve a considerably increased traffic flow. Therefore, while the Gibbs report declared itself satisfied that there would not be undue congestion around Waterloo, it is clear that, if we have anything like the projections given by the higher Eurotunnel figures — and, indeed, the 50 per cent. increase made possible by resignalling of track, there could be considerable congestion. One estimate is of at least an additional 4 million vehicles a year in or around Waterloo.
I said earlier that already some hon. Members crossing Westminster bridge have to negotiate their way past tourist buses which are parked there — not simply to obtain a better view of this place, but because there is nowhere else in the immediate vicinity in which to park such a vehicle. It is not entirely a facetious remark when I say that hon. Members may find the congestion around Waterloo caused by several million additional vehicles a year to be considerable. Attention should also be given to the social costs of undue congestion. The Waterloo area contains an inner-city community struggling to resist commercial development pressures and to safeguard and restore community services and facilities. There is a considerable, if not acute, threat to that from the imposition of a single terminal, rather than dispersal of a higher degree of traffic than the 30 per cent. now estimated by British Rail.
I appreciate — as I said earlier — that the Minister came to see the position for himself. I know that he is concerned, and realises that there is a viable local

community in the Waterloo area. However, I submit that the assessment should take account of railway operational matters as well as traffic generation, pollution and other environmental effects, the benefits to international and domestic public transport passengers, including commuter passengers, and the integration of transport facilities.
British Rail has brought out a conveniently designed cross flow system for escalators designed to separate commuter traffic from international traffic. While the principle is no doubt a good one, in practice the strain on the service is likely to be considerable. It is clear to those of us who are familiar with Waterloo station that the idea of converting what is now a one-way road system, in which taxis have access to the station, to a two-way system will lead to considerable congestion. Those of us who use Waterloo know that if one taxi pulls out the traffic pile-up can involve up to 15 vehicles. On a random representative occasion, I found 15 cabs waiting because one was unloading and the others were piled up behind it.
The environmental consequences will be considerable. British Rail's original proposal was for the terminal to be at the other end of the station, because it was recognised that increased space might well be needed to avoid congestion. Use of the other side of the station would involve building over areas which at present have housing, and a street market of the kind that the Minister has seen.
As it has not been possible in the fullest feasible detail to examine these proposals in a Committee of this House, or in the other place, I submit that little would be lost if the amendment were accepted. I cannot anticipate the advice that the Minister may have taken from officials, but I know that he is a man with an independent mind. Were I an official, I might even advise him that the definition of "excess" provides room for manoeuvre over what British Rail might or might not have to consider.
The Minister has expressed his concern for the community at Waterloo. Earlier he referred to the unwillingness of representatives of the local community groups to take part in the committee that he offered them. I appreciate his disappointment about that, but that issue is now in the past. The Minister has expressed concern and has permitted himself to be better informed about the possible congestion of Waterloo as a flagship terminal. That would imperil the economic viability of the fixed link traffic, if there were not consequential expenditure to facilitate the dispersal of traffic. That might lead to legislation having to be considered on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I urge him to accept both my amendments.

Mr. David Mitchell: British Rail's choice of Waterloo as an international terminal has been debated exhaustively at all stages of the Bill's passage through both Houses. The misgivings of the Waterloo community about the effect of this development on them are understandable. If, however, the council that they elected to represent them had been prepared to respond to British Rail's repeated offers of consultation, or if they had not made the futile gesture of walking out of the meeting that I had convened to bring them and British Rail together, it might have been possible to put some of these misgivings at rest.
Critics of the Waterloo proposal have now had every opportunity to put their views before Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. After considering their views carefully, both Select Committees considered that there was no reason to question British Rail's decision, or to remove the Waterloo provisions from the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's first amendment would require British Rail to take account of the social and congestion costs arising from the excess use of Waterloo as a terminal. It would not require British Rail to do this when drawing up its plans for dispersal under the new clause, but I assume that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention. The plan would provide a basis on which local authorities and other interested parties in the regions could discuss with British Rail its plans for the dispersal of services. I do not think that it would be helpful for the plan to be cluttered with discussions about the adequacy or otherwise of Waterloo. That is a separate issue.
The hon. Gentleman's second amendment would require British Rail's plans to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The approach to publication that we have adopted is once again inspired by the approach of the original Opposition clause. That clause required the board to publish its plan in such a manner as it considered best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who would be affected by its implementation. This clause uses different words to achieve the same purpose.
There is no question of the board publishing the plan in a surreptitious manner so that nobody knows about it. The board would have every interest in letting its potential customers know what sort of services it was planning to provide. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will publish its plan widely. However, in response to the hon. Gentleman's request, I am happy to undertake that when the plan is published copies will he placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Holland: I am most grateful to the Minister, and I know that the local community will also be grateful to him for what he has said. Nevertheless, it is important to have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Public display boards at Waterloo gave information that proved to be misinformation. It had to be withdrawn. Consultation chats with British Rail management and members of the local community have not addressed detailed questions such as the mix of private car, taxi and coach use and the congestion during holiday periods and in the week. However, I say again that I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40

NO GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO RAILWAYS BOARD IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY SERVICES

Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 42

MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO COAST PROTECTION, SAFETY OF NAVIGATION AND THE POWERS OF HARBOUR AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 30, line 12, at beginning insert

"Subject to subsection (6) below").

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 85.

Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments give the Dover harbour board greater freedom to carry out blasting operations in or near the harbour without the prior approval of the concessionaires and were negotiated and agreed between the parties at the same time as they agreed the revised protective provisions in part IV of schedule 7. The amendments were submitted to and endorsed by the Select Committee in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 47

INTERPRETATION

Lords amendment: No. 82. in page 32, line 13, after "sections" insert

"shown on Sheets Nos. 1 to 15 and 21 to 34 of the plans and sections".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos 83, 84, 89, 91 to 94, 101. 114 to 132 and 172.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments give effect to the decision of the Select Committee in another place to replace the access provisions contained in the Bill on introduction with the joint southern access arrangements that were worked out between the local authorities and Eurotunnel after the original alternative access proposals were rejected by the Select Committee of this House. As the House knows, these revised access arrangements were widely welcomed by many petitioners and by many of the constituents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who may be regarded as the godfather of these proposals.

Mr. Aitken: Having had the not very agreeable duty of quarrelling with the Government about the procedural arrangements for the access road, it gives me pleasure to be able to say how strongly I am in favour of this change in the Bill, which I believe to be of environmental benefit, because it will save many acres of the countryside. It will also bring more trade and business to the beleaguered economies of many east Kent towns, including the Thanet towns in my constituency.
I ask the Minister for an assurance, however, that signposting will be given proper priority. This road, curling towards east Kent, will nevertheless fail in one of its purposes if it is inadequately signposted and if the various tourist and business attractions of east Kent are not clearly marked.
I join in paying tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who is indeed the godfather of this group of amendments. They are most welcome. If the Channel tunnel is built, I hope that they will bring some benefit to the economies of those communities who will lose jobs.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has asked me about signposting. I have taken a personal interest in that subject. It will not have escaped his attention that it was specifically mentioned by the House of Commons Select Committee when it considered the alternative access. It will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the joint consultative committee when it meets in Kent. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken into account on that occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 90, in page 35, line 27, leave out "the".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 95, 111 and 113.

Mr. Mitchell: These are drafting amendments.

Mr. Clive Soley: These are slightly more than drafting amendments. I shall not delay the House long, but this is an important matter that affects my constituency with regard to compensation that is paid for land damage. I shall address my remarks in particular to amendment No. 111.
The land that I shall refer to is Scrubs wood in my constituency, which will be used for sidings and the toilet-emptying facilities of trains when they are parked overnight. It is a surprising area in inner-city terms. It is a wildlife area and British Rail accepts—the Minister will know this from the debate that we had in Committee—that a large part of it will be destroyed.
This matter was brought to my attention by a young man who is aged 15 years. Lester Holloway has already received a considerable amount of publicity with regard to the matter. As a result of his work, he has been nominated for the Youth of the Year award in a BBC programme. His work is impressive, and over the years he has collated the wildlife that lives in the area, including his main interest of birds. He has the support of the London Wildlife Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other such groups.
The relevant part of amendment No. 111 is the requirement for British Rail to pay compensation. The compensation that is being mentioned is about £36,000. The costing of the amount that will be required to protect the area is about £260,000. Amendment No. 111 refers to damage done, and its effect is to remove those words from the Bill, which should not happen.
I shall now explain the background to the matter and explain the importance and relevance of it. Lester

Holloway produced his report and has received a wide degree of support. When he came to see me at the House I drew the matter to the attention of my friend, Nick Raynsford, who was the Member for Fulham and who was on the Committee. The Government accepted an amendment that was tabled by him which called for consultations with the London Wildlife Trust and the London boroughs of Hammersmith, Fulham and Ealing because of the damage that would be done to this unique area.
It is a unique area because it has evolved over many years, partly as a result of industrial use as a railway siding and partly as a result of having allotments there in the past. According to a number of experts, not just Lester Holloway, it has produced an amazingly wide variety of plant life in a small area, which in turn supports a wide variety of insects, animals and bird life. The area contains semi-mature woodland of several different types, dry heathland, grassland and gorse near the wetter habitats of the canal.
I have a petition which has been signed by some 4,000 people. It expresses opposition to the development and calls for British Rail to make compensation in the amount that I have mentioned. I shall not go into detail, but in this area an extraordinarily wide variety of birds, animals and insects have been identified, many of which have been unknown to other areas of London. One of the matters that I want to stress to the Minister—I am seeking his support to urge British Rail to increase the compensation for the damage done—is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has passed regulations that in the new GCSE curriculum all biology students need to do field work and ecological studies. All inner-London and inner-city areas have difficulties in identifying areas for such work. This is such an area, yet it will be destroyed.
If the worst comes to the worst British Rail must take over this area, but we are asking that it restructures the area to the south. It has offered some £36,000 to do that, but reading between the lines British Rail seems to take the view that it is just a matter of moving the fence back a few hundred yards. It is not; it is a matter of restructuring the environment.
I shall quote from the House of Lords with regard to this matter. Lord Belstead said:
During the proceedings of the Select Committee, the London Wildlife Trust raised the question of extending the consultation requirement to clearance of the land and asked British Rail to give an undertaking that it would not at any time alter the site in any way without adequate prior consultation. The Noble Baroness"—
Baroness Nicol—
said that she thought that British Rail was sympathetic to that course. Indeed, British Rail was able to give an assurance that if the London Wildlife Trust wished to identify a particular species or habitat that it wanted to preserve or remove, that opportunity would be given. I believe that we ought to accept that assurance in good faith.
Baroness Nicol said:
The Minister seems to base his case on the need to trust the undertaking given by British Rail. I am sorry to say that the damage that has been done to the site as a preliminary to survey work has been done within the last two weeks, which is after the undertaking was given. Noble Lords can scarcely be surprised therefore if the London Wildlife Trust and the other local groups feel a little diffident about accepting the rest of British Rail's undertakings. I am sorry to have to undermine the Minister's argument but this is a fact, and somewhere I have photographs of the damage"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 587 and 589.]


An excellent report has been made by Land Use Consultants, which is an expert in this sector. It argued that the site can be moved but it must be done well in advance of the work that will destroy the existing area and that the cost will be about £260,000. We must bear in mind that the depot in this area is estimated to cost £41·9 million. British Rail has offered £36,000.
I ask the Minister to recognise that the amendment that the Lords have inserted has reduced the pressure on British Rail to pay compensation for the damage that everybody acknowledges will be done to a unique inner-city area. If we regard it as important to protect areas such as Kent, which I support and understand, we must consider it exceptionally important to do so in inner city areas, where everyone acknowledges that there are species of animals, bird life and insects that have not been seen not only in the inner city areas but the surrounding areas of London. It is that rare wildlife that is in danger of being wiped out.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the report from Lester Holloway, but I am happy to let him have a copy. It details different and rare things that he has spotted, including a swallowtail butterfly, which has not been seen in that area for many years. There is a moth, of which I had no knowledge, called the wormwood shark, which also inhabits that area and is regarded as very rare. I urge the Minister to look again at the amendment or to use his good offices with British Rail to ensure that it makes a more realistic offer to compensate for the damage that everyone acknowledges will be done.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but amendment No. 111 has nothing to do with Scrubs wood. It is a drafting amendment to the provisions concerning temporary occupation of land. There is no temporary occupation of land at Scrubs wood. British Rail's offer of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as a reasonable offer.

Mr. Soley: Obviously, the Minister is right about the terms of temporary occupation. I spotted that years ago. however, the words removed by the Lord's amendment are:
in respect of damage arising from the execution of any works, other than damage for which".

Mr. Mitchell: As I was saying, the sum of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as being reasonable and proper. It is not for me to interfere. I am aware of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman's young constituent, Lester Holloway. I was impressed with what I saw of his work. I have written to him to congratulate him on his work and to thank him for having drawn attention to the important ecological aspects to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has drawn the attention of the House.
I hope that with those sympathetic comments, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it is right that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 91 to 102 agreed to.

Schedule 2

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO THE SCHEDULED WORKS AND OTHER AUTHORISED WORKS

Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 43, line 25, leave out, ", water or" and insert "or water pipes,".

9 pm

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 108 and No. 112.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are protective arrangements agreed between the parties during the Select Committee of another place over the drainage lagoon works in the Bill and the discharges from it. Because of further amendments to schedule 7 made in another place, it is unlikely that the lagoon will be built, but the protection is needed should it be necessary, after all, to build one. The question of the sewer alternative arises under amendment No. 197.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 108 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 109, in page 46, line 21, leave out from "vehicles" to end of line 22 and insert

"provided in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) below;"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 110.

Mr. Mitchell: These are agreed amendments to a private schedule accepted by the Select Committee of another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 110 to 132 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 133, in page 57, line 22. leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

"(5) Where the construction of any part of the road forming Work No. 17 has been completed the Secretary of State may, if the part concerned was not a highway at the passing of this Act, certify a date on which it is to be transferred to that Council.".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 142.

Mr. Mitchell: These are technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 142 agreed to.

Schedule 3

PLANNING PERMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 59, line 43, at end insert—

""spoil" means spoil from tunnelling works; and

"surplus spoil" means spoil which is not used for the purposes of any of the works authorised by this Act.".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: Nos. 144 to 148, 151, 154, 155 and 183.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are technical. They will bring together in a more logical order the provisions relating to spoil disposal.

Mr. David Shaw: Having been negative about some of the amendments, I am glad to say that I welcome certain aspects of amendment No. 184. There is no question but that some of the provisions relating to the control of the way in which spoil is dealt with will benefit the constituency of Dover.
Nevertheless, I feel that it is appropriate to sound a note of concern. The Government's 1973 paper on the Channel tunnel suggested that only 2 million cubic metres of spoil would have to be dealt with, and that would certainly not need to be dumped at the base of Shakespeare cliff, just out to sea from my constituency. The excess of over 2 million cubic metres is unacceptable. I am also concerned at the impact on the environment of the spoil being moved around near to the council estate of Aycliffe. There could be considerable problems from noise as well as from dust.
I am concerned, too, about the visual impact on the environment. My wife and I very much enjoy walking on Shakespeare cliff, and clearly the walk will not be as attractive as it has been in the past. Many people from Dover enjoy that walk—

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman should not get too close to the edge.

Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that if he likes to come with me, I shall take him close to the edge.
As I feel certain that the Minister will get the proposal through the House and as this is probably the last time that I shall say anything on the Bill or the amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that Opposition Members will be pleased when I sit down; they will be less pleased when I stand up on more political matters at a later date.
No doubt the Minister will earn his due rewards after the Bill has been passed. Although I have given him many brickbats, I hope that I may also pay tribute and thanks to him for the provisions that he has inserted for the benefit of Dover. Into this thoroughly unacceptable Bill he has managed to insert at least a modicum of provisions to protect the interests of the ports and ferries.
If the workings are started and the finance is raised—which I doubt—I hope that if there are any problems relating to spoil in the years ahead the Minister will agree to receive delegations of residents perhaps represented by me to discuss them. I refer to problems of excessive noise and visual problems, or restricted walking or anything that may impair the benefits that my constituents are used to enjoying.

Mr. David Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend about the agreeable nature of the walk along the top of Shakespeare cliff. However, unless he walks very close to the edge he will have difficulty in seeing the land reclaimed with the spoil from the Channel tunnel.
The amendments ensure that the planning authority when considering requests for planning approval for the sea wall may take into account the requirement for other consents in relation to the sea wall contained in schedule 7. Conversely, when approving the sea wall for navigation purposes, they permit the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for planning approval. They also

provide for consultation on the deposit of spoil with the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters.
Lords Amendment No. 148 also writes into the Bill the more southerly alignment of the cut-and-cover rail tunnel through Holywell Coombe agreed by Eurotunnel, the Nature Conservancy Council and other environmental bodies, strongly supported by the Select Committee in the other place. It defines a protected area south of which all the construction must take place. This will safeguard the northern of the two most important geological deposits in the Coombe area, which would have been destroyed under the original alignment proposals. I am sure that any noise or visual problems will be raised at the meetings of the joint consultation committee by the Dover representatives, and they will certainly be sympathetically heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 148 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 149, in page 62, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
6.—(1) The land associated with any building, facility or work comprised in any authorised development shall be landscaped in accordance with a scheme approved, at the request of the Concessionaires, by the district planning authority.
(1A) No building, facility or work so comprised shall be brought into use unless—

(a) a scheme for the landscaping of the land associated with it has been so approved; and
(b) any landscaping operations required by the scheme to have been completed before the building, facility or work is brought into use have been completed in accordance with the scheme."

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 150.

Mr. Mitchell: These amendents ensure that provisions of the landscape scheme prepared by the concessionaires and approved by the local planning authority are enforceable by providing a more flexible from of planning condition.

Mr. Snape: As these are the last two amendments, and this may be the last debate on the Bill—

Mr. Alan Howarth: No, they are not.

Mr. Snape: They are the last ones formally set down. I am grateful to the Whip, but the vow of silence that he has taken should be thoroughly enforced.

Mr. Howarth: Look over the page.

Mr. Snape: I am sorry that I got involved in this. The Whip is right to say that there are half a dozen more groups of amendments over the page. I apologise to him and to the House for intervening at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 150 to 156 agreed to.

Schedule 4

THE A20 IMPROVEMENT WORKS

Lords amendment: No. 157, in page 67, line 29, after "with" insert "the"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 158 and 159.

Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments simply correct some very small drafting slips.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 158 and 159 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 160, in page 70, leave out lines 25 to 27.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 161.

Mr. Mitchell: These are simply rearrangements of the footpath and bridleway network affected by the A20 to meet petitioning points made by the Ramblers Association to the Select Committee of this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 161 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 162, in page 71, line 28, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 31 and insert—

"6.—(1) On the date on which this Act is passed".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 171.

Mr. Mitchell: These are simply technical amendments concerned with the status of the A20 improvement works.

Question put and agreed ot.

Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 172 agreed to.

Schedule 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 173, in page 77, line 46, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 1 on page 78.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 174.

Mr. Mitchell: The first amendment deletes superfluous words and in doing so creates an inconsistency in the drafting. The second amendment is consequential upon the first.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 174 agreed to.

Schedule 7

PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 85, line 41, leave out
constructing or carrying out works of maintenance on

and insert
carrying out any work for the construction or maintenance of

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 182 and 184 to 204.

Mr. Mitchell: Those amendments deal with a variety o matters relating to protective provisions agreed before the Select Committee of another place. They concern water, sewerage, drainage and workings at sea and provide additional protection to the statutory undertakings involved.

Mr. Snape: I have been assured by Conservative Members that there are no more pages of amendments. Therefore, I take the opportunity on this last group of amendments, on what I hope is the last day of debate on the Bill, to thank the Minister of State for his courtesy and attention to detail over the past year. It has been much appreciated. Sometimes the content of his answers has not been appreciated by Labour Members of by members of the two Committees on which I have served but, despite our political differences, at all times he has tried to meet the various, sometimes conflicting amendments and advice, for which we are all grateful.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to briefly comment on the water, sewerage and drainage aspects of the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will appreciate, the Bill wended its way through the House while I was not present. Therefore, I want to place on record my complete opposition to this wretched Channel tunnel venture. It has nothing whatever to do with transport. It is designed to pour huge sums of public money—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot seek to make now the speech that he might have made had he been a Member of the House when the Bill was debated. I hope that he will address his remarks to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Cryer: I am concerned with the cost of the water, sewerage and drainage facilities that will arise as part of the huge amount of public expenditure for a tunnel that is designed only to link us closer to the Common Market and which is not of advantage to the country.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been a Member of the House at the time he would have heard those comments made by a number of other hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kind remarks. The Bill has been considerably improved in its passage through the various processes of the House and of the other place, the Standing Committee and the Select Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have played a significant part in achieving that improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Members' Salaries and Allowances

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disre-garding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
(b) the Salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, beat a yearly rate equal to 67 percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House
if we take together the other motions in my name:
That, in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment).
(ii) on secretarial assistance, and
(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,

should be known as the office costs allowance;
(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows—

(i) for the year ending with 31st March 1988, the limit should be £20,140,
(ii) for the year ending with 31st March 1989, the limit should be the greater of the following amounts, namely the amount obtained by increasing £19,500 by the relevant percentage and £20,140,
(iii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secre-tarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or
(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement details of that persons's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,

together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;
(d) the limit applicable to the sum referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 percent. of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or
(ii) 10 per cent. of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.
In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;



(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.

That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service or, if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).
I hope also to cover in my remarks the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987 for which we are seeking the House's approval.
The discussion of our salaries is always a peculiarly intimate and sensitive debate. The last time we debated these matters the common theme running through the speeches from both sides of the House was how invidious and embarrassing it was that, year after year, we had to debate and then determine our own pay. The motions in my name would, if approved, lead to automatic adjustments in our salaries for future years without the need for annual debates. I shall deal first with Members' and then Ministers' pay before turning to the motion on the secretarial allowance.
The House last debated Members' salaries in July 1983. On 19 July, while accepting a phased increase in salary up to £18,500 on 1 January 1987, the House voted that, from 1 January 1988, a Member's salary would be linked to that paid to the Civil Service grade which was earning £18,500 in July 1983. That was equivalent to 89 per cent. of the basic maximum of the grade 6 or senior principal pay scale. To become effective, the resolution required confirmation within three months of a new Parliament.
That linkage would give Members a rise of £4,048, from £18,500 to £22,548, to be paid from 1 January 1988. It would also mean that future annual increases from 1 January 1989 and beyond for Members' pay would be linked to the increase for this Civil Service pay point. As some hon. and right hon. Members will recall, the Government did not originally support either the principle of linkage or this particular linkage. We were prepared, as a compromise, to support a different linkage that would have produced a much more modest increase. But the House voted for the increase that I described earlier, and traditionally it is the House which decides the issue. Today it is for the House to decide whether to confirm the linkage in the 1983 resolution. The motions in my name give the House that chance.
Despite our original reservations about the linkage, I now support it. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to listen to the House on such matters and, sometimes, to defer to its judgment. The House has voted for the principle of linkage on three separate occasions—in 1975, 1980 and 1983—and its will is clear. As a workable and, I believe, generally acceptable proposal, the linkage has virtues other than necessity. I am sure that the whole House will be relieved if we can agree upon it tonight.
There are two further points that I should make. First, we believe that it is in accordance with the will of the House to make this linkage with the basic maximum pay

scale for this grade, and not to take account of any discretionary pay points that might be added to the scale, but which will not be awarded to the grade as a whole.
Second, I should explain why there are two similar motions on Members' pay. The first motion is framed as an expression of opinion, and can be amended. The second bears the Queen's Recommendation, and cannot be amended. This is required in order to provide for an increase in Exchequer contributions to the pension fund, following an increase in Members' pay. These two motions are the normal way of dealing with the issue If the first finds favour in the House in an unamended form, the second effective motion will be moved. If, however, the House rejects or amends the first motion, we will not move the second motion today, but I shall undertake to return to the House in the near future with an effective motion that reflects the House's view.
I hope, however, that the House will accept the motion in its present form, as the amendment which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled is not one which I could recommend—although I shall, of course, listen attentively to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I believe that the amendment would bar Members from occupations outside the House, after the next election. I do not think that there is a consensus about this, and I am sure that many Members believe that it can be beneficial to the work of the House if some Members have current experience of outside employment.
The motions deal also with the reduced parliamentary salary payable to my colleagues on the Front Bench, and certain other officeholders. The arrangement proposed is that their reduced parliamentary salary should be linked to a lower percentage of the same maximum on the senior principal pay scale, as was envisaged in 1983 That will give my colleagues an increase in this element of their salary from £13,875 to £16,911.
As far as ministerial salaries themselves are concerned, the Government's proposals are contained in the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which I laid before the House on 16 July and which I hope the House will approve today. I refer the House also to my written answer of Thursday 16 July in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) when I set out in some detail the changes that we envisage. The Government's proposals are simple. We do not believe that percentage increases similar to that proposed for Members would be appropriate for Ministers or other officeholders. At the same time, we do not believe that it would be right for junior Ministers in particular to be worse off than if they had remained Back-Bench Members.
We propose, therefore, that all Ministers and officeholders in this House, and in another place, should receive in total the same cash increase of £4,048 as Members of Parliament are due to receive from 1 January 1988.
I turn now to our consideration of the Members' office, secretarial and research allowance. On 16 July last year, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, (Mr. Biffen), moved a motion which was designed to overcome the anomalous increase that would have occurred in the allowance because of a quirk in the linkage. He accompanied this motion with the assurance that the allowance would be referred to the TSRB for a fundamental overhaul. On that occasion, the House did not accept the wise advice of my right hon. Friend to limit the percentage increase in the allowance for that year to 6 per cent., but accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that the allowance should be paid as if it had been fixed at £19,000 rather than at £13,211 and should be further increased by 6 per cent. for the following financial year. That gave a maximum of £20,140 for last year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North none the less referred the office, secretarial and research allowance to the Top Salaries Review Body. Its report was published earlier this year, as my right hon. Friend announced to the House in a written answer on 29 April. The TSRB recommended that the maximum allowance from 1 April 1987 should be £19,500, consisting notionally of £17,000 for staff and £2,500 for office and equipment costs. In view of the decision that the House had already taken that the allowance be set at £20,140, the TSRB recommended that the level should be retained on a mark-time basis until the figure of £19,500, uprated in accordance with the existing formula, reached a level higher than £20,140. The TSRB in addition made recommendations about good employment practice and accountability for claims made on the allowance.
The motion in my name on the secretarial allowance reflects in a number of ways the conclusions of the TSRB's report. It follows the reommendation, which I have just outlined, about the level of the allowance and mark-time arrangements. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would overturn those arrangements. I shall listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I believe the House would be doing itself a disservice if, having preempted the TSRB's review by voting for the present level of allowance, it rejected the TSRB's conclusion that the allowance was too high.
For the future, the Government motion retains the linkage which has previously been in operation with the maximum of the senior personal secretary scale receiving inner London weighting, again as the TSRB recommended. The TSRB believed that the allowance should be renamed the office expenses allowance. I have slightly adapted this recommendation to rename it the office costs allowance. This is to emphasise the point, both to hon. Members and to others, that the payments available are for costs incurred, and do not represent a second general source of income for Members.
The House will see that the motion takes account of the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendation that to promote good employment practice the Fees Office should

receive copies of written statements of main terms and conditions of employment for Members' staff. It is, of course, already a legal obligation for Members to supply their staff with such documentation, and it is worrying that the TSRB found some instances where that was not happening. The implementation of this recommendation should rectify the position.
Additionally on accountability, the TSRB recommen-ded that we should consider whether we should adopt in the resolution the Inland Revenue criteria of expenditure qualifying for reimbursement which is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" in parliamentary duties. I considered carefully whether adopting that formula would substantially improve the arrangements for accountability. I accept the spirit of that recommendation, but I am not convinced that the wording of the criteria used by the Inland Revenue is necessarily appropriate for our own arrangements. Indeed, I believe that difficulties might arise if the same wording were used in different circumstances but in respect of the same claims both by the Fees Office and the Inland Revenue.
Finally, I refer to the TSRB's recommendation that Chief Whips should make informal arrangements so that any claims on which, exceptionally, substantial doubts have arisen, and which cannot be resolved by the Fees Office and the individual Member, can be referred to the appropriate Chief Whip. Those arrangements, by their very nature, are not suited to being expressed formally in the terms of the resolution. But I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary is discussing, through the usual channels, how such arrangements might work.
The motions are, of course, for the House to decide. I believe that they reflect what the House has in mind when we last debated Members' pay, and it is on that basis that I have brought them forward today. On Ministers' pay, I believe that our proposals represent a fair and realistic settlement, while as far as the office allowance is concerned, as I hope I have shown, the motion in my name was drawn up with the recommendations of the TSRB very much in mind. I commend the motions to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment to motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have been unable to select the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but I have selected the amendment to motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and his hon. Friends. At the end of the debate I shall put each motion separately and call upon the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments formally.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Both from reading ancient debates on Members' pay and being present at some of the earlier debates in the 1980s I believe that it is fair to say that debates on our pay have always been long on humbug, but short on candour. I hope that the weight of precedent will not mean that I entirely follow what has happened in the past.
In a free vote tonight I am advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion to increase Members' pay and formalise the linkage, which we agreed in principle. I am also advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment to the motion on


allowances proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Although I am sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which would, if passed, abate Members' earnings in relation to their outside earnings, I am extremely doubtful whether the drafting of that proposition is sound. [Interruption.]
Now that I have raised the subject of humbug I would like to get one bit of humbug out of the way — the Prime Minister's stance on this pay increase. There have been many apparent leaks in the newspapers — unattributable briefings — suggesting that the Prime Minister, in some way or other, wishes to block or reduce the proposed increase. In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady claims to be a conviction politician, that cannot be true. If hon. Members refer to Hansard for 19 July 1983 they will find that the right hon. Lady voted, not once, but twice, for the proposition that is before us tonight. Therefore, if any Conservative Members are seeking to ingratiate themselves with the inhabitant of 10 Downing street, I suggest that, rather than rely on the scurrilous rumours in the newspapers, they stick to the written record in Hansard and vote for this proposition for the increase and the linkage in the sure knowledge that they will be doing what the Prime Minister really wants.
In 1983 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that, from June 1983, Members of Parliament should receive £19,000 a year. The Government refused to accept the recommendation of the independent review body. There were various behind-the-scene deals, in which Sir Edward du Cann, as boss of the 1922 Committee, was portrayed as our shop steward. As a result of his activities the proposed increase of £19,000 was reduced to pay increases rising by instalments to £18,500 in 1987, and an increase in Members' contributions towards pensions from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent.—not a brilliant effort as a shop steward, many hon. Members thought. However, in an extraordinary quid pro quo, it was also agreed that the proposed secretarial allowance of £13,000 should be reduced to £11,000, thus managing to give the impression that hon. Members put number one first and gave little attention to their responsibility for paying decent wages to their staff.
Nevertheless, at that time, with the Prime Minister's support, linkage was agreed, and that is the proposal that is before the House tonight. We welcome that linkage; it has been agreed twice before at a higher grading in the Civil Service than the one being proposed tonight, but it should, as the Leader of the House has said, help us avoid similar debates on this in future.
There have been discussions about the right level of pay for Members of Parliament. They are not really discussions of the principle, because that was decided in 1911, when Parliament was faced with many relatively impecunious Labour Members and decided to pay £400 a year. I am advised that the value of that £400 in today's money would be about £50,000, so we are not paying ourselves as well as was originally agreed in 1911. Some of my hon. Friends may be interested to know that the 1911 decision was an implementation of one of the six demands of the Chartists in 1838, who called for the payment of Members of Parliament
to enable an honest tradesman, working man, or other person to serve a constituency when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country".

The decision whether Members should be paid has been made, but the level of pay is a matter of judgment.
By way of comparisons, let us consider the sort of people that we, as hon. Members, have to deal with. These include large numbers of members of the staff of the House of Commons. I am advised that 62 of the present staff are on salary scales that start above the present level of ours and a further 49 are on scales that start below ours but end above it. It looks as though we are more or less on level pegging with 100-odd members of the staff of the House of Commons.
We might also compare ourselves with those who report on our activities in the House. It is the duty of hon. Members to formulate what they are going to say and to rely on all sorts of rhetorical attributes to get their message over, whereas the Lobby journalists have the simple and straightforward task of reporting truthfully and accurately what is said in this place. No invention, no embroidery and no imaginative skill are required.
If we examine Lobby journalists' expenses we may obtain some idea of how well we are looking after ourselves. Not a single Lobby journalist working for a national newspaper will be paid less than us if our proposed increase goes through. I am also advised that some Lobby journalists working for Sunday newspapers. and therefore producing at best one article a week, are paid as much as twice what we shall be receiving when the increase goes through—plus, in many cases, a free car and expenses.
Journalists' expenses are not really in the same class as those that we are paid. We must prove to the Fees Office that money has been properly spent on our parliamentary duties, whereas the expenses incurred by many journalists are, shall we say, self-consumed; or, occasionally, their consumption is assisted by hon. Members. Other people that we have to deal with are officials in health authorities and local authorities. Hon. Members will find that a substantial number of senior officers with whom they have to deal in those authorities will continue to be paid rather better than we are.
International comparisons are difficult, but the United States House of Representatives pays its members £50,000 and the Netherlands pays up to about £30,000, depending on the level of outside earnings of members. Again it appears that we are not really feathering our nests. What is proposed now springs from what was originally proposed by the Top Salaries Review Body and ought to be supported by the House because the linkage is extremely valuable.
Some of my hon. Friends think that we are already paid too much and that we should not give ourselves an increase. Self-denial has a long and reputable history, but the emphasis should be on self rather than on forcing denial on others. That applies to hon. Members who do not supplement their incomes from any source outside the House. I do not know exactly what view I take of some Conservative Members who earn or receive substantial sums from outside the House and still say that we ought not to increase our pay. That seems to be extremely close to humbug.
I shall now turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. It proposes to abate Members' pay by a substantial proportion of their outside earnings. The amendment is badly drafted and might make the situation worse than it is. The clause would abate the present earnings of, for example, a Tory


Member who has been running a small engineering company for 20 years. However, if the income derived from his or her activities or employment as a Member of Parliament, and if the hon. Member was the parliamentary adviser to a Japanese video company, the salary would not be abated by the amount received from that source. That is a silly and unjustifiable position, although I think that there ought to be an abatement of Members' pay related to outside earnings.
I shall now turn to allowances. The Opposition, and I think most Conservative Members, welcome the provision to make the payment of the secretarial allowance subject to the submission to the Fees Office of a statement of the contract of employment of employees. That would clearly be good for the employee and for the reputation of Members, because we could no longer be accused of fiddling.
I do not support the standstill in the increase proposed this year by the Government, even though it was also recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. The TSRB is not consistent. It says that in view of the increase that went through last year, there is evidence showing that hon. Members are moving towards employing two full-time staff. It says that Members should employ only one and a half members of staff. In a sense the market shows that there is a need for more staff and the allowances should respond to that. We support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Setting aside the pay, most hon. Members regard the working conditions of most of our staff as absolutely abominable. The conditions should be massively improved. The only way to do that is to create more office space for the staff to work in. I want to suggest that although the House has not yet had time to debate a report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) about the new buildings and additional accommodation, the House should seriously consider the possibility of taking over at least some, or possibly all, of Richmond terrace, the Whitehall rehabilitation, and the new buildings, 158,000 sq ft of offices provided at a cost of £36 million, presently earmarked for a large collection of civil servants. There is a greater need for hon. Members to be near to this House than for a large collection of civil servants to move yet nearer to 10 Downing street.
I present an entirely personal view about ministerial salaries. I welcome the Government's decision to abate the increases that would otherwise have gone to Ministers. I believe that Ministers have always done rather well in our system. After all, Cabinet Ministers were receiving £5,000 a year when hon. Members did not get a cent. I believe that it would be better and sounder for our democracy if the differential between Back-Bench Members and Ministers was reduced.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Why?

Mr. Dobson: I will try to explan why. At present if a Minister is feeling a little dissatisfied at what the Government are doing in Cabinet he is faced with the prospect of losing the chaffeur-driven car, his office and status and, in the case of Cabinet Ministers, he faces losing a very substantial chunk of income, as one of the recent victims of the post-election purge explained the other day. It is wholly sound that in our democracy we should

encourage people to say what they think in Cabinet, to do what they believe to be right and not to face massive financial penalties if they want to get out. After all, had my proposition existed before, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) would have been able to speak out about the Stalinist regime before he was thrown out of Cabinet.
In summary, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the proposed increase and linkage in Members' pay, to support the amendment to raise allowances in line with the comparative pay and support ministerial salaries being held back.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If I might follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, if we are to pay Members of Parliament £20,000 or £30,000 or more, is there not more reason for hon. Members to want to keep their Government in office so that they do not risk their jobs? Is that not a better argument to get better Ministers rather than better-paid Members? How do we argue both cases? We either believe in better-paid Ministers or more Members of Parliament.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should it not be in order only for hon. Members to speak in this debate who rely entirely on their salary, unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who is a senior member of a firm of stockbrokers and a member of many companies, who does not depend on his parliamentary salary and indeed who could do without it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is an amendment on that very matter.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) puts forward arguments that were put forward by the Tory party in the debate in 1911 when it was suggested that, if hon. Members were paid anything, they would be forced to work even harder to sustain their party in office for fear of the electoral consequences. It was pointed out in that debate that the person who made that suggestion had taken a very large salary as a Minister and, before then, had done public service in the Army and received a substantial salary. It did not seem to affect his work. Despite the fact that the Tory party opposed the payment of Members in 1911, there is precious little evidence that even the rich ones among them did not pocket the 400 quid as soon as it became available.
Finally—this applies to the hon. Member for Selly Oak—if there are any hon. Members who do not want to take the pay increase or who feel that they cannot properly spend all the allowances in providing a service for their constituents, that is their decision. I do not believe that they should obstruct those of us who feel that we could make good use of both.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This is a very important matter and it is interesting that a number of hon. Members are missing, not least some who have a reputation which, I suspect, would enable them to pay for the privilege of having an audience for the many witticisms which they provoke, often from a sedentary position. We need not pay any serious attention to them. I suspect that there are hon. Members present who have taken, either by wit or good fortune, precautions to link their salary or take-home pay to such extraneous matters as the housing market, which


will undoubtedly take greater care of them than any cost of living increase will take care of the salary of Members of Parliament in the future. I do not think that we need pay a great deal of heed to them.
There are hon. Members among us who have been in the habit of pouring contempt on what they see as the greed of Back Benchers because they are able to do so with the tremendous confidence that comes from having inherited a great deal from daddy or grand-daddy. That is undoubedly a powerful mechanism for making one immune from any suggestion that the salary paid to a Member of Parliament should reflect his quality.
It is some 20 years since I was a member of the Civil Service. I was a member of the grade to which we shall be linked, bar a mere 11 per cent. I do not believe that my constituents, or indeed many of the public outside, would believe that it was enormously self-seeking of me to vote in support of a motion which would put me back within 89 per cent. of the salary that it was felt I was worth to the public 20 years ago. In the debate about salaries and allowances, it is far too easy to forget the nature of the work which the public send us here to do. Members of Parliament are not simply managers or wage slaves of the ordinary kind. All hon. Members know, many much better than I, that most members of the public believe that anyone could become a Member of Parliament. In a real and precious sense, that is absolutely true, and long may it remain so. Before people become Members of this honourable House, they have to undergo, in nearly every case, a long and arduous apprenticeship. They have to attend meeting after meeting after meeting, usually with very small numbers of people and very small rewards, in either interest or effectiveness. They have to go at all sorts of hours to meetings which last late into the night so that they can make merely the first steps of a recognition that they might be eligible to put themselves forward to represent a constituency. That is not an easy apprenticeship and it is not one which most of our constituents would wish to undertake.
There is another large difference between our position here and that of most members of the general public. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are carrying on private conversations desist or leave the Chamber?

Mr. Rowe: It is also true to say that most members of the public have views on political issues. The thing that singles us out is that at some point in the game we have to be seen to make a decision. We have to be counted in our debates. We have to vote, and that vote is recorded in a way that comes back to haunt many of us later.
It is often said that the best advice that a new Member of Parliament is given is to be his own man — or her own woman. I think that that is absolutely right. However, it is a much more difficult thing to be than most members of the public, and indeed most people who give that advice, are capable of understanding. Because we have to try to be our own person, and because we must at some stage in the game stand up and be counted, and have our opinions recorded, we are in a unique position.
Finally, I believe that, by and large, Members of Parliament in this honourable House have a reputation—deservedly earned—for working hard, for representing their constituents and for engaging, to a degree that is

uncommon in the world outside, in voluntary and other activities. The record of nearly every hon. Member is a pre-eminent record of public service.
For all those reasons, I believe that this is an honourable undertaking and a worthwhile profession. I think it wholly improper to suggest that to link ourselves with 89 per cent. of a civil service grade that already contains some 3,700 civil servants is in any way greedy or self-seeking.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I think that it is time for a change on this subject. I have found over many years in Parliament under both Conservative and Labour Governments that it has never been a right time to pay Members of Parliament or their staff more. In 1964, we received no secretarial allowances, and had to pay for telephone calls outside London. Those things we built up slowly and painfully over a number of years. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen in silence.

Mr. Orme: I shall not detain the House for very long. However, I think that this is an important issue. The media are listening, and we know some of the remarks that will be made, but I believe that what we are doing is right, and it is not excessive. That is the important thing. The link is with 89 per cent. of a principal grade. That grade is £25,335. We are not receiving that, because the resolution is for 89 per cent. In 1964, the salary was £3,250. If the increase had been based on a retail price index, that salary today would be £22,780, which is very close to what we shall get. If it were linked to wages, it would be £36,500. That is an indication of what the salary could be.
It is not correct that we are to have a 21 per cent. increase. In 1983, the agreed figure of £18,500 was staged over four years. Consequently, there was no increase during that period. The retail price increase is about 21 per cent. — exactly the increase that we are to receive. Therefore, this provision is right.
I do not agree, however, about secretarial allowances. Hon. Members will be unable to give a pay increase to their staff for the next two years. That is wrong. I understand that the Leader of the House is to refer hon. Members' pensions to a review body.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Motions relating to Members' Salaries and the Motion relating to Office Costs etc. Allowances may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Members' Salaries and Allowances

Question again proposed.

Mr. Orme: Therefore, I support the amendment that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
What the House is doing tonight is right. We have nothing to be ashamed of; we and our staff ought to be paid decent salaries. On that basis, I support the proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a new Member of the House, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in the debate. One is in the Catch 22 situation: if one opposes the motion, one is unpopular with one's colleagues, whereas if one supports the motion one is unpopular with one's constituents.
I support the pay rise, because Members of Parliament are not properly remunerated for what they do. However, I cannot support this motion, because it is linked with pay in the Civil Service. It is wrong for Members of Parliament to be linked with civil servants. Hon. Members have had many arguments used against any increase in their salaries. Writing yesterday in the London Evening Standard, Mr. Enoch Powell suggested that we were gentlemen and that we did not need an increase in pay. I do not know what Mr. Enoch Powell's fee was, nor do I know what Mr. Julian Critchley earns—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should refer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley).

Mr. Bennett: I do not know what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) earns when he writes that gentleman are people who have four buttons on their cuffs.
We ought to pay hon. Members a proper salary for the job that they do, to ensure that as wide a range of people as possible enter this House as Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should not be just rich men with other incomes. I declare that I have no other income but that of a Member of Parliament.
I support the arguments that were used in 1911 when Members of Parliament were first paid, but the idea that our pay should be linked with that of civil servants appals me. It is the duty of hon. Members to control the size of Government and the cost of Government. There will be no incentive for hon. Members to keep down public expenditure if their pay is linked to that of civil servants. Instead, hon. Members' pay ought to be linked to pay in the private sector, where increases are most closely linked with economic prosperity. Our rewards ought to be a reflection of economic success. If private sector pay were to increase because of economic success, our pay would be increased, too. To link our pay with that of civil servants, which we ought to be controlling, would lead to an increase in public expenditure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to speak to my amendment, in line 8, leave out 'and' and insert:
`, except that any income received by a Member, and not immediately derived from his or her activities and employment as a Member of Parliament (a Member's extra-parliamentary income) shall

(i) in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, but not after the next general election, be deducted from the difference between the rate specificied in paragraph (a) herein and the rate payable in 1987, and
(ii) in respect of services in any year subsequent to the next general election be deducted from the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein;


(a) that for purposes of computation and ratification each Member's annual total extra-parliamentary income shall be required to be recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, but shall not be made available to the public;
(b) for the purposes of definition of extra-parliamentary income, fees which are received are wholly and

exclusively attributable to a Member's activities as a Member (such as articles and public, radio or television appearances) shall not be included.'. 
The Leader of the House rightly said that the substantial point is that, if it were passed, any income that was earned from activities outside the House would be deducted from any increase that we receive tonight or subsequently, and that income that is received from activities outside the House after the next election would be deducted if it equalled or exceeded an hon. Member's salary. The result would be that if an hon. Member's outside income exceeded the £22,000 odd that we may vote ourselves this evening, he or she would receive nothing from the taxpayer.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will we have to pay money in if we get more?

Mr. Hughes: A quite appropriate supplementary question was just asked from a sedentary position behind me as to whether we would have to pay money to the taxpayer if we earned more on the side. The logical answer to that is that it is not a bad idea, but we must proceed by stages and begin by getting the first principle agreed before we start on what might be regarded as a slightly more penal taxation policy.
There are two supplemental points. First, it is necessary, if there is to be such a proposal, that it is policed. The appropriate police officer would be the Registrar of Members Interests.

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I recognise an intervention when I see one. I shall give way in a moment if my hon. Friend will permit me.
The second qualification is that it may be better to include earnings for which one is paid that come from activities such as interviews, as a result of being a Member of Parliament—[Interruption.]

Mr. Smith: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hughes: That is not a matter of principle —[Laughter.] If the House took a hard line it would be perfectly proper for any other fees to be excluded.

Mr. Smith: I shall ask my hon. Friend two simple points. First, will my hon. Friend explain where or how his amendment would differentiate between earned and unearned income? Will he explain that, because, as I read the amendment, any interest, even from investments, would have to be taken into account? Secondly, may we assume that if an increase is agreed tonight he will waive the extra £4,000, or alternatively resign his practice at the Bar?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hughes: I will answer. On the first point, all income would be included as the amendment is at present drafted. On the second point, the amount recorded as being my earnings at the Bar in the past year is about £900—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This sort of reaction merely prolongs the agony.

Mr. Hughes: I cannot resign my profession, but I am certainly willing to agree that any other earnings that I have be deducted from the amount that the House votes itself. It would be inconsistent to do otherwise.
This is a matter of substantial importance. When the review was carried out in 1982, 69 per cent. of hon. Members had other income—that was out of the 329 hon. Members, 52 per cent., who replied. The Top Salaries Review Body found that the mean time spent on other activity was 10 hours per week and that other incomes ranged from between £1,000 or less to over £20,000. If the answers received were a fair sample, the median earning was £5,500. That would hardly make a substantial difference in present income because it is almost balanced out by the increase proposed.
Many hon. Members are consultants and advisers but do not have to declare the amount they earn. However, their decisions and activities in the House are substantially influenced by those other income-earning activities. For example, we have only to look at the debate we have just had on the Channel Tunnel Bill. Over 37 Tory Members of this House or the other place have one interest or another in one of the competing companies concerned in the Channel tunnel project. The public can never discover what people are paid for such interests and it is wrong and unprincipled that people can earn substantial sums of money about which the public never find out and which clearly must influence the way in which they conduct not only their decision making in the House but the way in which they spend their time.
This motion is an expression of opinion of the House. It has to he followed by an implementing resolution, which is on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the drafting of my amendment may be defective. I agree that there may be defective drafting, but this is not an implementing motion, it is an expression of opinion. It may not be word perfect and I do not pretend that it is, but the principle is clear even if the drafting is not as clear. It may not catch everybody. It may allow people to hide funds in trusts or allow their spouses to earn on their behalf.
There are other ways of dealing with the same issue. In the United States of America one can lose a percentage of one's income depending on how much one earns elsewhere. However, it is important that we do not bar people from other occupations but that we apply to hon. Members the same rule as applies to Ministers. For example, even if they keep on a solicitorial partnership they cannot earn from that. That tradition has a fine series of precedents. It goes back to the 19th century when directorships were disqualified from being compatibly held by Ministers.
Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman extended that to partnerships, and in the 1930s it was extended again. It is now time to extend it to all hon. Members. There is no doubt that money is influence. There is no doubt that hon. Members are influenced away from representing their constituents by their other interests. Indeed, some openly admit to spending at least a day a week on other duties. If we believe in open government, we should be open about what we earn. I advocate decent pay for staff and hon. Members, but the time has come—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If money is influence, what influence did the British School of Motoring exert on the Liberal party?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question so often that he should know the answer, which

is, none. The matter was unrelated to hon. Members of this House or their activities here. I believe that the time for two-timing and earning two or more salaries is over.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the official spokesman of the Liberal party to talk about—

Mr. Cyril Smith: No.

Mr. Gow: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the official spokesman of the Liberal party to talk about principle when his party is totally without principle?

Mr. Hughes: The Leader of the House made it clear that this is a matter for the House. I have expressed a personal view and we shall vote as individuals. We are not pursuing a party line on this side, whatever may be the case elsewhere in the House. The job of hon. Members is unique and their parliamentary salary should he their unique source of income.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: Until the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke, I proposed to say that the House agreed two matters. Now I think that it is agreed on three. The third is that the point that he has tried to make this evening is an extremely silly one on which the House will not want to waste much time. However, I must say that it is a wonderful recipe for saddling the country with professional politicians who are otherwise quite unemployable and who think that, apart from representing their constituents, their only duty is to go on television and be paid for doing so. That would be a recipe for parliamentary disaster.
The other two matters on which the House remains agreed are, first, that we do not want a long de bate or long speeches and, secondly, that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are glad that the Government have brought forward the idea of linkage to which many hon. Members have been attracted for a long time. I am not one of them, and I make no bones about it. I believe that it would have been much better if, on previous occasions, we had contrived to arrange matters so that the outgoing Parliament voted the salary of the incoming Parliament, without inflation clauses, escalators or linkage — but with responsibility taken uniquely by hon. Members and not shuffled off through some other device. But that option was not open to us, which I can only regret. Others welcome what has been offered to us this evening.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the straightforward way in which he brought the proposition before us. I commend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on what must be one of his first appearances in that capacity, on many of the things that he said. I also commend the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) in his newly acquired role of shop steward. I will not call him the joint ship steward, because, whatever my predecessor may have done, I do not aspire to be a shop steward in these matters. They are all far too difficult for me, but they will not be too difficult for the right hon. Gentleman. He got the mood of the House right, and I hope to keep it that way by speaking only briefly.
The less time that we spend on this matter, the more our constituents are likely to thank us. I hope that we shall not have to return to the subject for a very long time and that


we can move to other and, dare I say it, more important matters. However, some of the things that have been said this evening deserve a passing mention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to say what he did about secretarial allowances, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Salford, East commend the decision to refer the difficult question of the anomalies in Members' pensions to the Top Salaries Review Body, because we owe it to some of our older and retired colleagues to sort out the muddles which prevail there. But I believe that we should make a decision on the matter without too much more debate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I want to intervene only briefly in the debate to refer to the consequences for Members' widows of decisions by this House to reject pay rises recommended by the body responsible for independently reviewing parliamentary pay. As the House knows, I do so as Chairman of the Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and the House of Commons Members' Fund.
The decision to reject the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations to increase Members' salaries to £19,000 from 13 June 1983 has had a markedly adverse effect on the pensions of Members now in retirement. To take just one example, Members who retired at last month's general election now have a pension 5·21 per cent. below what they would have received if the TSRB's recommendation had been implemented. Thus, a former Member who now receives £8,000 would have had more than £8,416.
The effect on widows has been even more marked, as an analysis of actual cases very clearly demonstrates. Yet the effect on them was not even considered in 1983, nor was there the merest mention of them by Ministers or in media comment on the decision. What was the effect? Three of the widows of Members who died in 1984–85 lost 19·62 per cent., 16·98 per cent. and 13·7 per cent. respectively of the pensions that they would have received if the salary increase recommended by the TSRB in 1983 had been implemented.
The moral surely is that Members can be as self-denying as they like in determining the parliamentary salary, but they should not be unmindful of the effect on those who work largely unseen, but often with much dedication, in the service of the House. In my view, there was a very strong case in 1983, when the House rejected the recommended salary of £19,000, for that figure to be accepted at least for pension purposes.
There was a precedent for that in 1975, when the TSRB recommended a parliamentary salary of £ 8,000 compared with the £4,500 then payable. Although the recommenda-tion was not implemented by the House, with the salary moving only to £5,750, the Government of the day nevertheless allowed a higher notional salary to be implemented for pension purposes. As a result, the widows of Members who died in service were awarded pensions correspondingly higher than would otherwise have been the case. What we did in 1983, and what we should not repeat now, was to cut the living standards of widows whose pensions are, in the view of everyone who knows their value, anything but generous.
I think tonight of a very hard-working former colleague who is much missed in the House and whose widow's longterm pension entitlement since his death—she was not a young woman—was under £50 a week.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend is raising a matter of considerable importance which has not previously been touched upon outside the House in the general debate. The colleague he is referring to was one of the most respected Members of the House. His widow, like all wives of MPs, worked freely for the country. That fact ought to be recognised. It is a scandal that the widow of one of our colleagues, after many years of service, had to live on a pension of £50 a week and further lost 19·62 per cent. as a result of the delay of the last rise. Therefore, I hope that widows' pensions will not be a matter that the parliamentary trustees will lose sight of. I hope that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend, who is chairman, will pursue the matter out of justice to the widows of our former colleagues.

Mr. Morris: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will appreciate that it is a statutory scheme. We are bound by the decisions of the House. The House should not forget the plight of widows whose pensions, compared with pensions outside the House, are quite disgraceful. Anything that the trustees can do to help the widows of Members who have died will be gladly done.
The case I mention is the kind of case in which the decision of 1983 resulted in unmerited hardship and which should inform the debate tonight. Whatever the electorate at large may have thought of our decision in 1983 to reject the findings of an independent review of parliamentary pay, the effect on Members' widows has been extremely punishing. If any hon. Member doubts that truth, let him or her read the parliamentary reply given to me yesterday by the Leader of the House about the financial losses sustained by the eight widows of Members who died between 1 March 1984 and 30 April 1987. In that regard, may I say how conscientiously Mr. J. L. G. Dobson and his colleagues in the Fees Office work at all times, far beyond the call of duty, to help those who are bereaved when a Member or former Member dies. That help deserves the admiration of the House.
Hon. Members find it at once very inhibiting and deeply embarrassing to have to decide their remuneration. That is why it was ultimately decided to link parliamentary pay to a Civil Service grade. To undo that decision now would affect not only pay levels for Members of Parliament, but also the incomes of widows. It will be an improvement on our previous debates if their interests are not overlooked in our deliberations tonight.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I recognise that to speak tonight is not popular unless one is saying what it seems the majority of hon. Members wish to hear. This is not a road to Damascus. There will be no conversions on the way to the Lobbies.
It is not that I am against all of us as right hon. and hon. Members being paid properly for the services that we perform. However, on this one issue alone, it is right to ask why we wish to link ourselves to a mythical 89 per cent. of the grade of senior principal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that, at the end of the day, this House is the maker of laws and the


final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong in our country. Why do we not have the courage at the end of each Parliament to decide the proper pay scale for hon. Members? Why should we vote ourselves 89 per cent. of a principal's grade?
Is it not a fact that each Member of this House—there are only 640-odd of us — is in a unique occupation? We should at least keep some respect for the job that we do. At the end of each Parliament let us have the courage to debate, and for people outside to hear, what we think we are worth.
The only reason why this squalid alternative is brought forward is that hon. Members think that we cannot not argue about what we are worth as Members of Parliament. I believe that we can argue that. However, each time we back away from it. Instead of talking about 89 per cent. of a principal's grade, would it not be better to analyse what other Members of Parliament receive, whether in Australia, America, Canada, or even in Europe, which does not matter—they would receive more if we let them—and is it not better for us to judge, and to let other people judge, what we are worth? Why 89 per cent.? Why not 90 or 91 per cent.?
If it is true that the more we are paid, the better we are, why not be bold? Why not pay us £50,000 per year and receive a service that is twice as good? For those who are willing to take the risk, why not pay £100,000 per year and receive a service four times as good? However, that is not what the matter is really about. It is about this House keeping such matters within itself. If we are the mother of Parliaments, if we are the maker of laws for people, if we genuinely believe that if we said that men were women and that women were men, so in law they would be, and if we believe that if we said that the sky is black and not blue, so in law it would be, why are we unwilling to keep within ourselves the right for each Parliament to vote for what it believes in?
There are two reasons why I shall vote against these motions. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is so bizarre that I shall not vote for that. However, if my colleagues believe with the Government, as I do, that inflation is of the greatest importance, which it is, and if we are to improve manufacturing industry—Opposition Members are always telling us about the importance of manufacturing industry—and say that we believe that we can afford to pay other people only 6 per cent., then on this occasion, because we did not have the courage in the previous Parliament to decide what we should award ourselves, we should vote for 6 per cent. for ourselves and for 6 per cent. for other people. That is what I shall do.

Mr. Dennis Howell: The hon. Gentleman has put forward the proposition that he cannot vote for this increase because it is above the 5 per cent. rate of inflation that he recommends for manual workers. Since he is a stockbroker, will he kindly tell the House which stocks he advises his clients to buy which guarantee that they will not yield more than 5 per cent?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With enemies like that I need no friends. If the right hon. Member had not been so keen on spending other people's money he would have recognised that I gave up practising as a stockbroker some five years ago. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I depend upon others for their advice.
If we vote this increase for ourselves tonight — I recognise that hon. Members are worth that increase—could we at least forget the notion of giving up the right for each Parliament to decide what Members get? Let us keep within this House the right to decided so that people know that we do not lack the courage to tell them what we think we are worth.

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to move the amendment in line 11, leave out from 'be' to end of line 18 and insert
'the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and
(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);'.
There is printing error on the Order Paper because it should read:
to the end of line 13
This is a modest amendment and all that it seeks to do is to index the £20,140 for the current year to inflation and to use that figure as the base figure for future years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said earlier, the amendment will enable all Members claiming the allowance to give their staff a reasonable increase in the current and succeeding years.
If one is described as "a Guardian reader", it is now a term of abuse. Therefore, the House will appreciate my hesitation at quoting from The Guardian editorial of yesterday, which said:
for all MPs, failure to vote for the rise would mean funking a key opportunity to put Parliamentary pay on a sensible par with civil service salaries. If MPs do bottle out, they will be haunted by their failure. The whole impossible problem will be doomed to return each Parliamentary term, as it has done each term before. Better to be the real villains now and then to have done with it.
I reflected on those sentiments while the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was speaking. He reminded me of someone who once said of someone else that they knew the price of everything but the value of nothing. I sense that the majority of the House cannot understand why the hon. Member for Selly Oak wishes that, each year, Parliament should go through this process of determining our salaries. We decided that we wanted a link that was clear and objective and took the issue of parliamentary salaries out of this Chamber and out of this political, controversial arena.
The second part of The Guardian editorial said:
In a better world, MPs would not only put their salaries on a sensible footing, they would also bring their working conditions — their office space, research back-up and modern technological equipment—into the if modern world. That would cost more than tomorrow's pay rise, and it might also be better understood by the public and be better for government.
That is the main burden of my amendment, the objective of which is to enable all hon. Members to employ one full-time secretary, a reseach assistant and be left with sufficient funds to provide adequate modern equipment to enable us to do our job, which is effectively to represent our constituents. In reality, we know that the allowance is not sufficient to meet those objectives.
I have to declare an interest as a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I wish to refer to evidence submitted by the 1/427 branch of that union


which represents a large number of staff employed by Members of this House. Some time ago that union branch submitted evidence to the TSRB. Referring to secretaries the evidence states:
There can be no job to compare to that of working full time for an MP. A secretary or a researcher could be drafting press statements one minute and the next have to switch to being a tour guide, or deal with suicidal constituents, conduct advice surgeries, act as chauffeur, or even arrange for a decorator to paint the boss's flat.
The volume of correspondence is immense. Many secretaries process as many as 400 letters a week. A survey carried out by this Branch showed that during Parliamentary sessions, staff can work upwards of 60 hours a week. Paid overtime or time off in lieu is unheard of.
With regard to research assistants, the evidence states:
Research assistants are still regarded as a luxury rather than a necessity. The first call on resources is always the secretary and, as a result, researchers tend to be part time and often underpaid".
On equipment the evidence said:
much of this new technology has been introduced at the expense of staff pay. It is wrong that the allowance is supposed to cover staff and equipment. Staff are often played off against new technology. Or on an even more basic level, staff scrimp and save, terrified of buying a new stapler, typewriter ribbons or correcting fluid as this may affect their pay rise or possible bonus.
Finally, the evidence concluded:
There is no shortage of people willing—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: I will give way in a moment.
The evidence concluded:
There is no shortage of people willing to work for an MP—paid or unpaid. This has often given raise to low pay and abuse.
That is the view of the union that represents the majority of the staff employed by hon. Members of this House. It is disgraceful in 1987 that this House is at last complying with the law to issue our staff with contracts of employment that were required by law passed by the House in the middle 1970s. I believe that it is disgraceful that new hon. Members elected on 11 June are still in some cases without a desk or a telephone.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—and here I must confess to almost having an interest as I worked in the House as a researcher until very recently, and in the year before I was elected my earnings were only £5,000—that it is disgraceful that the House should consider putting hon. Members' salaries up to such a great extent and seek to salve hon. Members' consciences at the expense of those who work for us by stating that they will be denied any increase this year to pay for the rise?

Mr. Madden: Traditionally we have had substantial increases in the allowance put forward as a way of depressing parliamentary salaries. Tonight some hon. Members are arguing that an increase in the parliamentary salary should be used as an excuse to depress the

allowances. My amendment argues for a modest increase, by inflation, of the allowances this year and to use that as a base figure for the coming years. I believe that that would enable us to employ a secretary, a full-time research assistant and provide proper equipment. Nothing less is permissible in a legislature that is serious and that seriously wants to represent our constituents effectively in 1987. I hope that the House will carry my very modest amendment.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I want to make two very brief points. First, if there are right hon. or hon. Members who really do not think that the service that they give to their constituents, to this House and to the country is worth £22,500 they may well be right. Perhaps the service that they are giving is not worth that. However, I know that the service that I am giving is worth that much. In fact, I know that it is worth rather more.
I am one of those who are full-time hon. Members of the House. It is a well-known fact not often enough aired in public that many right hon. and hon. Members are not full-time Members; they are part-timers. That is because they are too busy spending time out of the House running businesses, appearing in court, writing highly paid articles for the popular press or perhaps less highly paid articles for the unpopular press. In some cases they are Members of an obscure body called the European Parliament.
Because they earn money from one source or another, many people have to spend time outside the House to justify the substantial amount of money that they pick up. I am not one of those; I am one of the full-time Members. To say the least, it would be grossly immoral for such part-time Members to vote against a pay increase for full-time Members. Indeed, we are working more than full-time because we also take a share of the work that they ought to be doing.
The return of attendances on Standing Committees and Select Committees makes interesting reading. Many right hon. and hon. Members have not been on a Standing Committee for years, and everybody knows it. The rest of us are doing part of their job for them. I repeat that it would be an act of pure immorality for such hon. Members to vote against a pay increase for us. I understand that some of my hon. Friends will oppose this increase on the grounds that they think that we should be paid no more than skilled workers in industry. That is an interesting argument and has been canvassed in the Labour movement for years.
I have carried out a little analysis and prepared a fairly detailed and precise estimate of the hours that I work. Over the year, including recesses and applying a normal industrial analysis—a formula based on a 39-hour basic week, time and a half for overtime during the week and double time at weekends, I have found that if this increase is agreed my hourly rate of pay will go up to £4·35 an hour. That could not be regarded as excessive in any industry. I say to my hon. Friends that it is a strange attitude for any trade unionist to vote against a pay increase.

Mr. Dave Nellist: This debate is one of the occasions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has as much right to be heard as any other hon. Member.

Mr. Nellist: This is one of the few occasions when at 10 minutes to l1 the House is full. Possibly within an hour or so the House will vote to raise the salary of a Member of Parliament from £356 a week to £434 a week, an increase of 21·9 per cent. If the House decides to do that, it will take hon. Members even further from the day-to-day conditions of the majority of the population. The £80 rise to be voted on is £3 more than the current take-home pay for a whole week of the civil servants upon whom the Government have just imposed a 4·25 per cent. pay increase. Those civil servants will not get the cushion of the 20 per cent. by which their salaries have fallen in the last seven years which hon. Members intend to claim for themselves.
The civil servants have also been told that regional and flexible pay is to be introduced by the Treasury. Regionalisation is an interesting concept. Apparently the higher the unemployment in a region, the lower the commensurate pay increases ought to be for those public servants working in that region. The concept has been well expressed by education spokesmen and Treasury and Civil Service spokesmen. It is an interesting concept to apply to Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, Wales, the north, the midlands and in areas where, in the past eight years, unemployment has rocketed. It would have been even more interesting to apply it to a Tory Cabinet that has doubled, if not trebled, unemployment and increased the number of those living on or below the margins of poverty to 18 million, one in three of the population. I do not think that, on a regionalised or flexible pay structure, Tory Members of the Cabinet would be thought to be worth over £1,000 a week.
Many Tory Members think that that is a bit of a joke. The civil servants do not think that regional or flexible pay is very funny. Despite the ballot result during the past week, if the Government intend to introduce for the Civil Service what they are not prepared to introduce for Members of Parliament, there will be a vastly different mood among civil servants, which will be shown in the new ballot which undoubtedly would have to be organised.
The House is supposed to reflect society as a whole. If this rise is agreed, the House will be even less reflective of society than it is. Some 5 million workers, including one in five of all adult women in full-time manual jobs, earn less in a week than the House is considering voting itself as an increase in Members' salaries. Some 500,000 workers earn as much as or more than the £22,500 that hon. Members will receive. In the past six years, the income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased from 45 to 49 per cent. of total income and the income of the poorest 40 per cent. of households has fallen from 9·5 to 6·3 per cent. If this rise is agreed, the House will reflect even more only rich sections of society and will in no respect reflect almost the majority of the population, especially those whose share of household income has fallen.
There are many reasons why the House does not reflect the whole of society. Some have already been mentioned. One reason is the degree to which Tory Members have outside interests; and the Liberal amendment deals with that in some respects. There are many Tory Members

sitting opposite me to whom whether the salary is £18,500 or £22,500 is largely immaterial. It is just pocket money to them. Unlike Labour Members, 99 per cent. of whom have as their only job that of Member of Parliament and the income that comes from it, the Tories—[Interruption.] All right. I shall come to some of the points later.

Mr. Michael Fallon: It would be honourable if the hon. Gentleman were to make his position absolutely clear. If his argument prevails, will he take the increase voted? If his answer to that is no and if he redistributes any proportion of his money to his constituents, the Labour party or any other interest, will he redistribute a higher proportion?

Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I intend to deal with that point in the latter part of my speech. But, briefly, the answer is no. I shall vote against the increase. If the rise goes through, I shall take the increase—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Mr. Nellist: Hang on, I am answering—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Member a chance to finish.

Mr. Nellist: I shall listen to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in a minute. I am dealing with the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) at the moment.
Then I shall do exactly the same as I have done over the past four years, which is to return some £16,000 of my take-home pay, half of which has gone back to the Labour party and half of which has gone to pensioners' groups, unemployed groups, miners' families, and so on. If the House decides to give me an extra £3,000 after-tax income to distribute to working-class families in my constituency and others, I intend to do precisely that.

Mr. Dickens: For many years, I was a fully paid up member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. What the hon. Gentleman has just said to the House is what I used to describe in my trade union days as, "Taking a free ride, brother."

Mr. Nellist: I suspect that members of the AEU who listened to that contribution were as mystified by it as I am. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain it further, however, he can do so in his own contribution.
More than 120 Tory Members of Parliament are company directors. In the last Parliament, I discovered the king of company directors—Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, then the Member for Hexham. He had 50 jobs. He was a Member of Parliament; he was a barrister —a QC, in fact—with overseas legal interests; and he held 48 chairmanships or company directorships. I never understood how that gentleman ever had time to turn up here.
On the present Tory Benches there are 40 barristers, 27 company consultants, 21 farmers or landowners, 14 merchant bankers, and a few dozen Lloyd's names. In case you are unfamiliar with that term, Mr. Speaker, it means that those who go down to Lloyd's and do a spot of underwriting must demonstrate that they have £100,000 in liquid cash, and pay £3,000 a year in membership fees.
For most Tory MPs, Parliament—this greatest club in Western Europe — is an extension of the life of privilege into which they were born, prefaced in 253 cases by private education and in 172 cases by Oxford or Cambridge. Incidentally, half a dozen Alliance Members have a similar educational background, exactly the same percentage as in the Tory party.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Register of Members' Interests has not yet been compiled, and that the range of Tory outside interests is therefore even richer than he has suggested so far? Does he also accept that we have a register of interests not because of pressure inside but because of pressure outside following the Poulson scandal, in which a number of Tories were wrapped up?

Mr. Nellist: I think that my hon. Friend could well amplify that contribution in a full speech of his own. He is right to point out that the Register of Members' Interests for this Parliament has yet to be compiled. The sources that I used for the figures that I have given so far have been the Register of Members' Interests for the former Parliament, Mr. Andrew Roth's "Parliamentary Profiles" booklets and the Conservative party's own list of Conservative parliamentary candidates, which was issued in May 1986. I am fairly sure that the numbers that I have given are accurate.
For those Tory Members who are effectively moonlighters, a parliamentary salary is an addition to their main sources of income—banking, farming and so forth. They can always attend the odd board meeting, or trip off down to Lloyd's or the Stock Exchange. Those Tory Members, whatever happens tonight, are talking about their pocket money, not a salary on which they have to live. I think that the Liberals' amendment—although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about its deficiencies — at least raises a question that many Labour spokesmen have tried to raise, particularly in the last couple of weeks in the debate on the Local Government Bill. Far too many Tory Members, when they vote on matters coming before the House—for instance, privatisation in hospitals and local authorities—stand to gain financially. The issue deserves far wider attention in the future.
Let us take an example. Let us say that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) decides this evening to vote against the rise in Members' salaries, which he may well do. I do not think that that will make much difference to him and to his lifestyle. As of January this year, the hon. Gentleman had £114 million worth of shares in a family grocery business, which makes him the ninth richest shareholder in Britain. The dividends on £144 million worth of shares probably exceeds the £20,000 a week mark, so £20,000 a year is largely irrelevant.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is besmirching the name of an hon. Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening with the greatest care. It may have been provocative, but nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said so far was out of order.

Mr. Fallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only fair that you should tell us whether the

hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) notice that he would be raising that point tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know that.

Mr. Nellist: In accordance with the traditions and rules of this House, it is entirely in order to make points about the background of Members of Parliament. It is not dishonourable for an hon. Member to own £114 million worth of shares, but members of the public who read this debate may draw an entirely different conclusion. That is a matter for them.
It is worth noting that another member of the same family, David Sainsbury, is the chief financial trustee of the Social Democratic party and that he owns £739 million worth of shares. That gives a weekly income from dividends of over £100,000. I predict that within three or four years he will be Britain's first billionaire shareholder. Four members of that family are now among the top 10 shareholders in this country.
Dozens of other Tory Members of Parliament may vote against this pay rise, but I question whether £18,500 or £22,500 means very much to them. I remind those Tory Members who will vote in favour of the pay rise of the arguments that they have deployed while I have been a Member of this House. Since 1983 they have referred to British workers being too highly paid. In February 1986 Lord Young said:
Rising unit wage costs make it so difficult for Britain to compete in world markets. Over the past five years wage costs have risen in manufacturing by a quarter whilst those of our major international competitors have risen by much less. With raw material costs now falling, a halt to the rise in unit wage costs would enable us to hold prices steady, increase sales and thereby create genuine, long lasting jobs.
If a 25 per cent. increase for manufacturing industry workers in the last six or seven years is too high, how can Tory Members of Parliament justify voting themselves a 21·9 per cent. increase? Whatever happened to the concept of giving a lead?

Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nellist: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. We have crossed swords on a number of occasions. I am anxious to get on and finish my speech.
International surveys show that out of all European countries, British workers are the lowest paid, that they work the longest hours and that they have the shortest holidays. Whatever happened to the Tory argument about the free market economy? What would happen if the Prime Minister were to be run over by a bus tomorrow morning? First, there would have to be the selection of a new leader for the Tory party. Half the Tory Members who are here tonight would probably vote for the bus driver, while the other half would vote for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Secondly, about 300 would apply for the job of Member of Parliament for the Finchley constituency. I thought that free-market economics meant that the greater the pressure of those wanting a job, the less the argument for an increase in wages. When that applies to Tory Members it goes out of the window, but that was the argument that was deployed in this Chamber—

Mr. Michael Lord: rose—

Mr. Nellist: Just a second.
Almost 12 months ago, in July 1986, we were discussing the Wages Act. Some 500,000 workers under the age of 21


years who were on £40 or £50 a week were told that they were pricing themselves out of a job because of the level of youth unemployment.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Mr. Nellist: Just a second, I said.
Some 12 months ago the House decided that, as a matter of principle, 400,000 young workers who were on £40 or £50 a week—hairdressers, those who were working in pubs, clubs, shops, restaurants and clothing establishments—were pricing themselves out of jobs. Yet tonight those same Tory Members are prepared to vote for an increase which is—[Interruption]—twice the amount that they considered to be too much for those young workers.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is talking about wealth and being wealthy. Does he consider it a crime to be wealthy?

Mr. Nellist: The City seems to have been fairly profitable over the past couple of years.
The single hourly adult rate is all that is left for the wages council to decide. The rate for those over the age of 21 years who work in an unlicenced place of refreshment is £2·10 per hour, which is a weekly wage of £81·90—the same amount that Tory Members intend to vote for as an increase in their salaries.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has said that the increase, is needed to attract the best people to stand for Parliament. How do we define who is best? From 1979 to 1986 the after-tax and insurance earnings of the lowest 10 per cent. of society rose by 3·5 per cent., but the earnings of the top 10 per cent. of society rose by 23·4 per cent. Who says that hon. Members representing the top 10 per cent. of wage earners in society will lead to a better House of Commons than those who represent the bottom 10 per cent.?
Some hon. Members say that we work long hours. That is true; I was one of the 260 hon. Members who were present in the Chamber at 3 o'clock this morning when some of us voted against the cuts in the rate support for two of the largest councils in Scotland. It is true that hon. Members work long hours, but it is ironic that we debated the matter until 3 o'clock this morning, yet on Friday we will have a vote on a three-month recess. Parliament could be organised on a more equal basis and the hours could be shared out over the year. Members of Parliament work long hours, but there are some 3 million shift workers in this country—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) may laugh, but he would not laugh if he wanted to be taken to hospital in an ambulance but discovered that the nurses and ambulance drivers had decided that they would not work shift work any more. What would happen if the steel workers, electricity workers, or those who work for basic industries, decided that they would not work shifts? Those shift workers receive an average wage of £210 a week for men and £142 for women. They work shifts all year, not one or two nights a week out of a possible 32 weeks in the year.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, "Let us vote for the motion because it introduces continuity and we will not have to come back to this argument again." I would be happy to look at that as a concept, particularly if Tory Back Benchers and Tory Cabinet Ministers such as the Minister for Employment

who replied to my question today, admitted that if those on youth training schemes had had a linkage system since April 1978 when their allowance was introduced. instead of being on about £28 a week they would be on £49 a week. Those young workers have seen 43 per cent. of their allowance cut because there is no linkage. They have lost some £21 a week because of the freeze. If it is good enough for hon. Members, why does not some Tory Cabinet Minister propose it for the 500,000 youngsters on the youth training scheme?
I shall come to my conclusion—[Interruption] I am sure that Tory Members are happy to hear that. Some have raised, as a justification for the increase jpon which we are voting tonight, the expense of being a Member of Parliament; the need to get taxis after late sittings, the need to eat on the move or the need for secretarial assistance and so on. I should put on record that the allowance for living in London is established at £8,000 a year. Some say that they cannot manage on that. When Lord Gowrie resigned from a £33,000 a year job in September 1985 he said:
It is not what people need for living in Central London.
How do Tory Members expect young working class couples to live in London? Do they not read the London newspapers? Young people in London have to club together, not just one or two of them but three or four of them, to save up enough of a deposit to buy a two bedroom terraced house. If hon. Members are concerned about the horrendous level of rents and house prices in London they should do something to tackle the source of the problems, not just deal with the effects. The first and most important thing to do is to provide more money for public sector building so that new houses reduce the pressure on the private rented sector which is leading to the escalation of rents.
Living in London is a separate issue from that being voted on tonight, as is transport. If hon. Members have to take taxis home after a late sitting they can claim the mileage component from their travel allowance. I do not claim for taxis when I have to take them from the House. I take the cost out of the profit I make on the general mileage allowance across the whole year, which in my case is about £2,000 a year. That means that I have never charged anybody for a public or political meeting I have done in the past four years. We should tackle the source. We should tackle the late night sittings, not the question of complaining about the prices paid for taxis
The secretarial allowances are still woefully inadequate. Many Tory Members get outside staff assistance from their business arrangements, but Labour Members, particularly those representing inner city areas, have a huge level of casework. They are trying to get to grips with the effects of eight years of decline and desolation caused by the Government, particularly in areas such as Coventry. There are wards in Coventry with over 50 per cent. male unemployment. That results in me receiving nearly 200 letters a week and the same is true for most of my Labour comrades, particularly those in inner city areas. The present secretarial allowance is woefully inadequate. If there had been a motion on the Order Paper to vote for the doubling of that allowance I would happily have done so. Unfortunately the only motion for which I can vote is that tabled by my hon. Friend the, Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
I now turn to my Labour comrades and colleagues. In the past four weeks inside the parliamentary Labour party,


in our publications and in our Labour party meetings we have been conducting an intense analysis about the result of the general election. If one fact has emerged above all others, it is that a successful four-week campaign that was intensively and professionally presented and packaged was unable to repair the damage of the preceding four years. During our discussions the word most used has been "image". There are 5 million workers who earn each week either the £80 that we are proposing to give ourselves as a rise or even less, and a total of 8·5 million workers who earn less than the Council of Europe "decency" threshold of £125 a week. How will these workers view tonight's decision? What effect will it have on our image? What will these voters think if Members vote for a £80 a week increase? The majority will think, "Once MPs get down in London there is no difference between them. They are all in it for what they can get out of it for themselves."
I have received many letters and phone calls on this issue, but during the past month I have not had one letter or comment from outside the House urging me to vote for the proposed increase. Instead, I have received many representations from those who believe that I should take a stand against the increase. I shall present the House with two examples. The first is from a Labour voter in Shropshire, and she writes:
Dear Mr. Nellist, I want to thank you for what you said last week on Radio 4 about MPs' pay. I certainly don't begrudge MPs a decent wage, but I do agree with what you said about trying to live at a level similar to that of many of your constituents so that you can really understand their problems. What it does seem is that MPs could do with more sociable hours, especially for those who are parents of young children.
As a parent of three young children, one of whom is only 10 weeks old, I would agree with that.
The other letter from which I shall quote comes from someone in West Sussex. It reads:
Dear Mr. Nellist, I applaud your attitude to parliamentary salaries that you expressed two days back on the 'Today' programme of Radio 4."—
[Interruption.] My hon. Friends who are commenting from a sedentary position will understand the point of this in a moment. The letter continues:
I do so all the more when I think"—

An Hon. Member: Sanctimonious.

Mr. Nellist: If there is a choice between sanctimony —

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be much more helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman were to get on with his speech and if he were not interrupted from a sedentary position by comments that divert him from his line.

Mr. Nellist: If there is a choice between sanctimony and greed, I know that to which I shall plead guilty.

Mr. George Galloway: That was unworthy of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nellist: I was responding to the charge of sanctimony. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) deals with that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has been correctly addressing his remarks to me, and he should continue to do so.

Mr. Nellist: All that I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be better to deal with the foul rather than to indulge in retaliation. I shall continue to read the letter from which I was quoting, which states:
I do so all the more when I think that unlike a great many MPs you doubtless have to actually live on what the nation pays you. I do so also as a life-long Conservative, conscious all too well that many MPs in my party are well off and still demand the new increase! They shock me as a pensioner.
I have given two examples of the way in which millions of ordinary working-class families will view tonight's debate. Despite the efforts that my right hon. and hon. Friends will undoubtedly make—I have no doubt that they will explain what they do with part of their salary, and I have the highest regard for them—the majority of the low paid, pensioners and those on supplementary benefits will read only the reports that will appear in the newspapers tomorrow of an £80 a week increase. They will hear none of the arguments that have been advanced to justify it.
I said earlier that many people outside this Chamber will see no difference between Tory and Labour Members tonight. But there is a difference. Tory Members represent the 3 per cent. of the working population who earn more than £22,500 a year. Labour Members should represent the 97 per cent. of the population for whom £450 a week would be a dream. Few, apart from myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) take the principled decision—in my case passed by my constituency Labour party about 10 years ago—that Labour Members should try to live on the same wages as the majority of their constituents and, therefore, reflect similar problems in terms of rates, mortgages, transport, the purchasing of kids' shoes and so on. I recognise that many of my hon. Friends—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gave much, if not all, of his parliamentary salary to the miners' families during the miners' strike —give away part of their salaries, but none of them takes the principled decision that I have outlined. I make no further criticism of them for that.
To answer the point made earlier by Tory Members, that has meant that I have given £16,000 of my take-home parliamentary salary back to the Labour movement, in addition—to answer the point of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) — to the £1,026 that I have earned during the past four years from television appearances and occasional journalism.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I ask this question sincerely. I thought I heard him refer earlier to the figure of £16,000, and he has just mentioned it again. Since the parliamentary salary is only £18,000, how can he give £16,000 back to his constituents? I do not understand it.

Mr. Nellist: It is quite simple. It is the figure over four years, and it works out at between £80 and £90 a week of my take-home salary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This sort of attitude hardly does us justice.

Mr. Nellist: As for the approach of taking only the average wage of the skilled worker, one hon. Member said that, were it applied on an hourly rate, it would mean that hon. Members would be earning a similar amount to the


amount that they earn now. My reply to that is that in Britain today there are about 350,000 shop stewards and lay officials of unions who, in addition to full-time occupations, put in many hours of unpaid work representing the members of their unions or their sections. They do not get wages at twice or three times the level of those whom they represent, or holidays of 20 weeks in the year. There are perhaps half a million charity workers who work many unpaid hours outside their normal occupations, raising money for everything from research into cancer to famine relief overseas. The vast majority of them are unpaid workers who do it because they believe that the job must be done. I see no dichotomy in basing my role in life on taking an average skilled worker's wage and on making similar sacrifices to the nearly 750,000 shop stewards, conveners, trade union officials and charity workers by not taking extra money for the extra hours that I put in.
I urge my comrades on the Labour Benches to vote against the increase of £80 a week and, in solidarity with those low-paid workers throughout the country, to vote against the motion. However, if it is passed, I urge them to give at least 5 per cent. of their gross salaries—

Mr. Orme: To Militant.

Mr. Nellist: No Stan, not to Militant, to Walworth Road. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is coming to the conclusion of his speech.

Mr. Nellist: My right hon. Friend from Salford, East (Mr. Orme) would be in a better position tomorrow morning to say to the National Executive of the Labour party that there would be no need for 40 redundancies and the closure of Labour Weekly, Socialist Youth and New Socialist if 229 Labour MPs each gave 5 per cent. of their gross salary. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend started it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is any disagreement between the hon. Members on this it ought to take place outside the Chamber.

Mr. Nellist: Tomorrow morning my right hon. Friend could then attend the National Executive as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party and report on additional £250,000 income for the Labour party and stop —[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend started it. He should not joke about Militant. He started it.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is incorrect. I am not a member of the National Executive of the Labour party.

Mr. Nellist: My right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: I was not going to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that I will. I think the whole House would agree that the hon. Member should now be heard in silence.

Mr. Nellist: In which case, following that helpful suggestion to the House, I will not prolong the argument with my right hon. Friend. I think the message has got through. If the increase goes through, I think the jobs in the three Labour party publications are worth at least a 5 per cent. sacrifice in gross pay by my colleagues. To give them the opportunity, in solidarity with the low-paid, to vote against the increase, I give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall try to divide the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: Many of the good points that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just made would have been enhanced if he had hidden some of his light under a slightly larger bushel, because many of his comments were true. Many of his points were good ones. Lecturing colleagues on how much to give of their pay, however, smacks of the benevolence that some of us have tried to escape from in fighting for decent wages and conditions without receiving the charity of. Conservative Members. I do not know anyone who owns shares in grocery firms. I do not even have any political associates who run PR consultancy firms. I try, as other Members do, to represent people in the House, to do a good job, to learn how to do it better and to try to earn the rewards that I am paid.
I hope that doing a decent day's—and night's—work will be properly rewarded and that the House will have the decency to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), because the treatment of those who work with us is a sign of the kind of people we are and the kind of world we expect for those we represent.
I welcome the assurances of the Leader of the House about tightening up the procedures and monitoring, because if people outside were aware of the poor conditions in which those whom we employ have to work and the pay on which they have to do it they would want us to double the amount that we pay. [Interruption.] I hope that they would, because I think that your words, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the Session about holding a Government to account can be fulfilled only if hon. Members put in the necessary work and are adequately serviced and supported.
Successive Governments have been happy to ensure that all Back Benchers are inadequately serviced to carry out that task. We have only ourselves to blame. [Interruption.] No, I do not call upon God. I expect elected Members to be big and dedicated enough to provide—for themselves and the electorate they serve—decent conditions in which to do their job properly.
I have no intention of setting up any kind of umbrella organisation to draw in funds. I should be held to account by other hon. Members if I did. There will be no curly-coated advisory service or group for drawing in funds.
I must tell Conservative Members, however, that the ridicule that was poured on the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was uncalled for. If we pay ourselves an adequate wage and we do an adequate job, we should not expect to take other jobs outside the House. No employer, including those who sit on the other side of the House, would tolerate in their employees what the electorate tolerate in us when it comes to other activities and employment. It is not moonlighting that we are engaged in; it is daylighting. I hope that we shall ensure that we do not continue to work silly hours. We must work in the daylight hours to do the job which we were sent here to do.
If we followed market forces and some people's ideas through to their logical conclusion, we would have sponsored Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "We already have"] I know of no trade union sponsored hon. Member who draws from his or her trade union money that goes


into a personal bank account. The same cannot be said for Conservative Members who have consultancies and who charge fees for their activities.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his argument about no other employer allowing an employee to have separate jobs in normal circumstances, would he care to comment on the fact that the motion, with which I disagree but which, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, links hon. Members' pay—for the sake of convenience and hiding further debate on the subject—to the Civil Service, yet no civil servant in Britain is allowed to have a second job? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House seeks that convenience without accepting the obligations of the link?

Mr. Blunkett: I need not reply to that intervention from the hon. Member, because his words were clearly addressed not to me but to Conservative Members.
We can expect the support of the people whom we represent in our desire to be paid decently and have good support services only if they are persuaded that we are doing our job properly and are working on their behalf and serving their interests, not those of various outside organisations. If we all acted in that way, politicians and politics would be more highly respected and Parliament would benefit.

Mr. Chris Mullin: It was unfortunate that we were an hour and half into the debate before coming across a dissenting point of view. I suggest that if we took a stroll up Whitehall and conducted a straw poll among the first few citizens we met, we should discover that a different view was held by —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole parliamentary process means listening to views with which we do not wholly agree.

Mr. Mullin: We would find that a different view on this issue is held by the people out there than exists in this rarefied atmosphere.
I shall be voting against the proposed increase, and in doing so I shall be casting no aspersions on the motives of those whose equally sincerely held views lead them to vote in the opposite direction. I shall vote in that way because I believe it wrong, at a time when increases of 3 to 5 per cent. are being imposed by this House on the public sector, that we should vote ourselves an increase of about 22 per cent.
I can think of no action that will more encourage public cynicism and help to undermine confidence in the democratic process than Members of Parliament doing for themselves the opposite to what they would have done to the public. It is fortunate for the reputation of the House that the debate is taking place at this late hour, unwitnessed by many representatives of our free press.
In the last decade we have grown used to appeals from this place for restraint addressed to most sections of the population—to postmen and nurses, for example. It is hypocritical that those who call most often for that restraint should make themselves be immune from it. Our constituents will not understand how, when the living

standards of many are lower than at any time in living memory, we should be voting ourselves such a massive increase.
Last week I was approached by a lady who lives on £30·40 per week supplementary benefit. She was not complaining about that. She contacted me because her benefit had failed to arrive and she was faced with destitution.
I have a wages slip from a young woman in my constituency. [Interruption] I hear groans from Conservative Members, but we should confront reality from time to time. We do not do so often, but I think that we should have a bash this evening. That young woman works a 41-hour week at a food processing factory in my constituency. Her gross pay was £52·20 for a 41-hour week. After deductions she received £47·56. That is not uncommon in this country. Many hon. Members could point to similar cases in their constituencies.
As I have said, I cast no aspersions on the motives of any hon. Member. I am simply saying that I am unable to look such people in the eye and to vote myself —[Interruption.] I shall come to that point in a minute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".]

Mr. Robert Litherland: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that he would vote against, but accept, the increase. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether he will assure the House that although he will vote against the motion, he will not accept one penny of the increase?

Mr. Mullin: I have no problem with that point and I shall deal with it in a minute. [Interruption.] I shall deal with it as robustly as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who, whatever one may think of his views, is one of the people in this place who practises what he preaches.
It has been said that our wages should be pegged to those of senior civil servants. I suggest that if we are interested in future in assessing by how much our wages should rise — I know that it is embarrassing for hon. Members to be called upon regularly to deal with the question of their own pay—and if we are looking for a convenient index against which to peg our wages, the national average industrial wage would be appropriate. I do not suggest that we should accept exactly the national average industrial wage, but that our wage level should be pegged to that rather than to the wage level of some mythical civil servant over the road whose lifestyle has nothing to do with those of most of the people whom we represent.
The question of allowances has been raised —[Interruption.] Conservative Members should keep their hair on. [Laughter.] I shall get there in a minute. It is nice to see the House so full at a quarter to midnight. Only a hanging debate attracts more Conservative Members.
The question of allowances has been raised. Many hon. Members have made the point, which I endorse, that if there is any public money to be spared, or rather any taxpayers' money—Conservative Members so often use that expression—it should go towards providing facilities that would better enable us to serve our constituencies. The point has also been raised, but it bears repeating, that as yet some hon. Members do not have a desk or telephone in the House. If we are here to serve our


constituents it is not an inconvenience for the hon. Member concerned, but for the constituents we are here to serve.
If there is extra taxpayers' money swilling around it might at least go towards for example, providing my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) with a desk and an office. Surely that is not a terribly unreasonable demand in this last quarter of the 20th century.

HON. MEMBERS: Is the hon. Gentleman going to take the increase?

Mr. Mullin: I will keep hon. Members in suspense for just a moment longer. They should relax. I will come to my conclusion shortly.
I am in the process of employing 1½ people —[Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked a question and they should listen politely to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would be well advised to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Mullin: Hon. Members have repeatedly asked whether I intend to take the allowance and I will now answer.

Hon. Members: The salary.

Mr. Mullin: I propose to employ 1½ people—a full-time assistant in my constituency and a half share of a secretary in London. The salary costs, taken with employer contributions, come to almost £18,000 a year. After paying those costs from the current allowances I am left with about £2,240 for the rent and rates on an office in the constituency. There is nothing remarkable about my plans—many of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, some Conservative Members follow the same practice.
I am left with £2,240 to pay the rates and rent on the constituency office, pay for a photocopier and more besides. I intend to put the proposed increase towards the allowance— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, every penny of it—to enable me to serve my constituents.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will give way now.

Hon. Members: Yes he will.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mullin: That is the action that I propose to take—

Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am extremely interested in what he has to say. My hon. Friend has said that he will give the increase to his staff. What will my hon. Friend do with his journalistic earnings in addition to his salary?

Mr. Mullin: Thus far, since coming to the House—

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend has only been here for six weeks.

Mr. Mullin: Thus far I have received £30 for a ludicrous questionnaire, which I donated, instantly, to the constituency party funds.
I have tried to emphasise that I am not seeking to cast aspersions on the motives of any hon. Members who take a different view from me. I cannot bring myself to look in

the eye people such as the young woman in my constituency who is paid £47·50 for a 41-hour week while voting myself an increase of £80 a week. I cannot and will not do that.

Mr. Wakeham: I sense that the House wants to reach a decision on these matters very quickly. We have heard many powerful speeches, but I suspect that hon. Members have made up their own minds.
I want to congratulate the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on his robust first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role. The motions are matters for the House and I have already said why I believe that the House should support them and reject the amendments. However, one or two things need to be said.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and others referred to matters concerning the inadequacy of the accommodation in the House. I appreciate that things are not perfect. The House will be aware of the programme to improve the position. However, I hope that the House will want me to acknowledge that the sterling work of the Serjeant at Arms and his staff in providing accommodation for hon. Members and their staff within the available resources is appreciated by everyone.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and others referred to the Members' pension fund. I will refer that matter to the Top Salaries Review Body and I hope to make an announcement about that later this week. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) rightly referred to the effect of Members' salary decisions on the pensions of hon. Members who have left the House and of widows. That is an essential part of the judgment that we have to make. I am grateful to him for his remarks about the helpfulness of the staff in the Fees Office. I know that I speak for the whole House when I endorse that and that they will be grateful for it.
The time has come to decide these matters. The House has an opportunity to put the debates behind us. I recommend the motions to the House.

Amendment proposed to the Question, in line 8, leave out `and' and insert—
`, except that any income received by a Member, and not immediately derived from his or her activities and employment as a Member of Parliament (a Member's extra-parliamentary income) shall

(i) in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, but not after the next general election, be deducted from the difference between the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein and the rate payable in 1987, and
(ii) in respect of services in any year subsequent to the next general election be deducted from the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein;


(b) that for purposes of computation and ratification each Member's annual total extra-parliamentary income shall be required to be recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, but shall not be made available to the public;
(c) for the purposes of definition of extra-parliamentary income, fees which are received and ire wholly and exclusively attributable to a Member's activities as a Member (such as articles and public, radio or television appearances) shall not be included.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 275.

Division No. 24]
[11.51 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Macdonald, Calum


Ashdown, Paddy
McFall, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Battle, John
McKelvey, William


Blunkett, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Boyes, Roland
Marek, Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Maxton, John


Callagnan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Clay, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morley, Elliott


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Salmond, Alex


Fatchett, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Short, Clare


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Snape, Peter


Galloway, George
Steinberg, Gerald


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hoyle, Doug
Wigley, Dafydd


Ingram, Adam
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kilfedder, James



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Matthew Taylor.


McAllion, John





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cartwright, John


Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Curry, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blair, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dewar, Donald


Bottomley, Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Browne, John (Winchester)
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Emery, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Fallon, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Favell, Tony


Butcher, John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Butler, Chris
Fookes, Miss Janet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Home Robertson, John
Paice, James


Howard, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howells, Geraint
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Timothy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim


John, Brynmor
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Johnston, Sir Russell
Riddick, Graham


Kennedy, Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Robertson, George


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkwood, Archy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lambie, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leadbitter, Ted
Shersby, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


MacGregor, John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis






Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walden, George


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Summerson, Hugo
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tony Durant and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per
That, in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment),
(ii) on secretarial assistance, and
(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,

should be known as the office costs allowance:

(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows —

(i) for the year ending with 31 st March 1988, the limit should be £20,140,
(ii) for the year ending with 31 st March 1989, the limit should be the greater of the following amounts, namely the amount obtained by increasing £19,500 by the relevant percentage and £20,140,
(iii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secretarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or
(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement details of that person's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,

together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;
(d) the limit applicable to the sums referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 per cent, of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or
(ii) 10 per cent, of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.

cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67 per cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I think the Serjeant at Arms will accept, I along with other Labour Members shouted "No" quite clearly in order to force a Division on the main Question.

Mr. Speaker: I was collecting the voices and I did not hear a sustained "No". I suggest that the hon. Gentleman maintains his objection on motion No. 5, which will cover the same point.

OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;
(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Amendment proposed to the Question, in line 11, leave out from 'be' to end of line 18 and insert—

'the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and
(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);', — [Mr. Madden.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 198.

Division No. 25]
[12.06 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cran, James


Amess, David
Crowther, Stan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashby, David
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Paddy
Darling, Alastair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bendall, Vivian
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas, Dick


Blair, Tony
Dover, Den


Blunkett, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bowis, John
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fisher, Mark


Buck, Sir Antony
Flannery, Martin


Buckley, George
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Galloway, George


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce





Hardy, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Haselhurst, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Haynes, Frank
Miscampbell, Norman


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Henderson, Douglas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliott


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Holland, Stuart
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Geraint
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, William


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Paice, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Patnick, Irvine


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jack, Michael
Pike, Peter


John, Brynmor
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prescott, John


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles
Randall, Stuart


Key, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, John


Knox, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lambie, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livsey, Richard
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Tom
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Robin


McTaggart, Bob
Steinberg, Gerald


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Mans, Keith
Summerson, Hugo


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Ms Joan


Maxton, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Wells, Bowen






Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wigley, Dafydd
Worthington, Anthony


Williams, Rt Hon A. J.



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Dave Nellist and


Winnick, David
Mr. Graham Allen.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayes, Jerry


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Atkins. Robert
Hayward, Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baldry, Tony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Batiste, Spencer
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hind, Kenneth


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howard, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Irvine, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Janman, Timothy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jessel, Toby


Burt, Alistair
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Chris
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carrington, Matthew
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Knowles, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Latham, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie. Mrs Edwina
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Curry, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Dicks, Terry
MacGregor, John


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Dunn, Bob
McLoughlin, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Favell, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mellor, David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mills, Iain


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


French, Douglas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fry, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon C.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Tony


Gow, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Onslow, Cranley


Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael





Raffan, Keith
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Redwood, John
Sumberg, David


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walden, George


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment),
(ii) on secretarial assistance, and
(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,
should be known as the office costs allowance;
(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows—

(i) for the year ending with 31st March 1988, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and
(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secretarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or
(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement


details of that person's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,
together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;
(d) the limit applicable to the sums referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 per cent, of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or
(ii) 10 per cent. of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.
In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;
(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.

MEMBERS' SALARIES

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put,
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service or, if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale): and
(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).— [Mr. Wakeham.]

The House divided: Ayes 407, Noes 34.

Division No. 26]
[12.18 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David


Allen, Graham
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Barron, Kevin


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Battle, John


Ashby, David
Beckett, Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart





Bendall, Vivian
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunn, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Durant, Tony


Blunkett, David
Dykes, Hugh


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boswell, Tim
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bottomley, Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fatchett, Derek


Bowis, John
Favell, Tony


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Bright, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George
Foulkes, George


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Butcher, John
Fraser, John


Butler, Chris
Freeman, Roger


Caborn, Richard
French, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim
Fry, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gale, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carrington, Matthew
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce


Cash, William
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Chope, Christopher
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Churchill, Mr
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grist, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ground, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cope, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Couchman, James
Haselhurst. Alan


Cran, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Hayes, Jerry


Cummings, J.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Haynes, Frank


Curry, David
Hayward, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Darling, Alastair
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Heddle, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Henderson, Douglas


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Day, Stephen
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Devlin, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dewar, Donald
Hind, Kenneth


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dicks, Terry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dixon, Don
Holland, Stuart


Dobson, Frank
Holt, Richard


Doran, Frank
Home Robertson, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Howard, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dover, Den
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)






Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Howells, Geraint
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Hoyle, Doug
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Maxton, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mellor, David


Ingram, Adam
Michael, Alun


Jack, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Jackson, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Janman, Timothy
Miscampbell, Norman


Jessel, Toby
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


John, Brynmor
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Moate, Roger


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Charles
Morgan, Rhodri


Key, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Kirkwood, Archy
Moss, Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Knox, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Lambie, David
Murphy, Paul


Lamond, James
Neale, Gerrard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Neubert, Michael


Lang, Ian
Newton, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Leadbitter, Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lee, John (Pendle)
O'Brien, William


Leighton, Ron
O'Neill, Martin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Onslow, Cranley


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lewis, Terry
Paice, James


Lilley, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Litherland, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Livsey, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pawsey, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Pike, Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney)


McAllion, John
Portillo, Michael


McAvoy, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McCartney, Ian
Prescott, John


McCrindle, Robert
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Macdonald, Calum
Quin, Ms Joyce


McFall, John
Raffan, Keith


MacGregor, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Randall, Stuart


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Rathbone, Tim


McKelvey, William
Redmond, Martin


Maclean, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McLeish, Henry
Reid, John


Maclennan, Robert
Renton, Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


McTaggart, Bob
Richardson, Ms Jo


McWilliam, John
Riddick, Graham


Madden, Max
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Major, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Malins, Humfrey
Robertson, George


Mans, Keith
Robinson, Geoffrey


Maples, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Marek, Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rooker, Jeff


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rowe, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Salmond, Alex
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Sheerman, Barry
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Short, Clare
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watts, John


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Snape, Peter
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Soley, Clive
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spearing, Nigel
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Squire, Robin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steen, Anthony
Wilson, Brian


Steinberg, Gerald
Winnick, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wood, Timothy


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Anthony


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livingstone, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cousins, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Bob
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Redwood, John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gow, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hinchliffe, David
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wall, Pat


Illsley, Eric



Irvine, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfedder, James
Mr. Dave Nellist and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Knapman, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved. —[Mr. Wakeham.]

Corporal Michael Owen

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity this morning to raise on the Adjournment the case of the late Corporal Michael Owen. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces for his trouble over the case during the past year and also for his attendance tonight. The case was brought to my attention by Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Nooney, who live in Hellesdon in my constituency of Norwich, North.
Corporal Michael Owen was in the 8th Field Workshop, REME, at Colchester, and was admitted to hospital on 15 June 1985. In this distressing case, as it turned out, he was terminally ill, and he died on 2 October 1985, having returned home just one or two days before he died. At that time he was still a serving soldier, although in normal circumstances if he had not taken ill he would have left the Army on 22 July 1985, with a terminal grant. In the event, because of his illness, his time in hospital and because he was still a serving soldier, he received a gratuity which, according to a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary on 9 July 1986, was payable to
his widow, provided that she was not separated from him at the time of his death. If no eligible widow exists it is paid to any eligible child or children".
Corporal Owen was separated from his wife, and divorce proceedings, as far as I am aware, were under way and still in progress at the time of his death. Therefore, through this gratuity, money was paid by the Army to his 18-year-old daughter, Joanne. In the months during which I have been dealing with the case, it has become clear to me that Corporal Owen's definite intention was that his estate should be left to his mother, Mrs. Irene Muriel Nooney, who, as I said, lives in my constituency at 34 Coppice Avenue, Hellesdon. Corporal Owen signed an Army will form, of which I have a copy, on 22 June 1985, and made it clear to his family that he had done this and that it was his intention that any money that came into his estate or that he received would go to his mother.
The question whether Corporal Owen's service continued beyond 22 July 1985 is important. According to a letter from the Ministry of Defence to Mrs. Nooney's solicitor dated 20 March 1987, if a serving soldier is in hospital at the time that he is due normally to leave service in the Army, he can be retained on full pay until treatment ceases or after five months from the period that he was last on duty, in which case a medical board is called and a decision taken as to whether the soldier is then discharged or kept in hospital for further treatment and remains a serving soldier before ultimate discharge. Further boards can be called at intervals of a maximum of 18 months.
In this case, if Corporal Owen had remained in hospital and had not died, a board would have been due after five months—on 22 December. If Corporal Owen had lived after that five-month period, his case would have been due for further examination by a medical board and a decision would have been taken whether to extend his time in hospital, extend his service or discharge him from the Army. On my reading of the regulations and the letter from the Ministry of Defence, Corporal Owen could, if he

wished, have requested an earlier board and obtained release while receiving medical care, and the moneys due to him.
I believe that Corporal Owen was in total ignorance of this fact and that he was fully confident that the intention of his will, made in June, would be carried out. I want to stress that I think that it is important that Corporal Owen was under that firm impression.
A further and more serious complication arose, which makes the case more difficult to judge. The Army was definitely at fault in its handling of the case. My hon. Friend the Minister has expressed regret—he apologised when he wrote on 6 October 1986. According to the Army, Corporal Owen signed a form to extend his service from 22 July 1985 to 22 December 1985. It may be a coincidence, but this is also a five-month period —identical to that which I mentioned earlier.
Nobody can establish why Corporal Owen was asked to sign such an extension of his service. It was not relevant because, if he had stayed in hospital, he would have remained a serving soldier and if, after a medical board, it was decided that he should be discharged, he would have been discharged. I am not clear even now why he should have wished to fill in the form, or why anyone else, including the Army, should have wished him to fill it in. There appear to have been serious errors.
The date on the form—the certificate of amendment to terms of service—of which I have a copy here, is 28 September. That is the date on which the form was supposed to have been signed by Corporal Owen and countersigned as witness by Captain Powers. It was signed by the commanding officer somewhat later.
According to the family and all of the evidence that I have, Corporal Owen returned home—a sick man about to die—on the day before, that is 27 September. In the letter from the Ministry of Defence to the solicitor of 20 March, it was stated that the witnessing of the signature did not take place when the form was signed but that it was signed in Otterburn — miles from Colchester — by Captain Powers, who had apparently satisfied himself that Corporal Owen's signature was the correct one. Goodness knows how he did that.
In the words of the Ministry of Defence, this could have been better organised. That is the understatement of the year. Somewhat later, the commanding officer countersigned the form saying that he was satisfied that Corporal Michael Owen had been interviewed and fully understood the implications of completing the extension of service form. As, after many months of study, I am still baffled as to how the form was remotely relevant. I fail to understand how Corporal Owen could have been interviewed, let alone how he could have understood the implications of what was going on. I reject that explanation and believe that there was a serious error of administration which throws the competence of the Army into doubt.
Filling in the form had no direct bearing on whether Corporal Owen was a serving soldier. If and when he signed the form—there is some doubt about it in the family—it is clear that he had no idea that it could have had any effect on his intention to leave money due to him to his mother.
The Army regulations, as quoted in the "Army Pensions Warrant," refer to terminal grant, which a soldier gets if he leaves the Army in normal circumstances, or a


gratuity if he dies in service, as happened here. The "Army Pensions Warrant" says that in the case of a gratuity, which happened in this case
the widow of an officer or a soldier who dies while serving on full pay on the Active List or after 31st March 1973 may be granted a gratuity which will either be the amount of the terminal grant or gratuity to which her husband would have been eligible had he been invalided from the Army.
I stress the word "may" there because there is an element of discretion to which the Army did not appear to give even a moment's thought when considering Michael Owen's case. It is worth noting in passing that it makes it clear in that passage that the amount of money involved is not different if we are talking about terminal grant or gratuity, so that is not a factor in this case.
The "Army Pensions Warrant" adds in section 14:
Subject to any exception which the Defence Council may approve, a gratuity shall not be granted to a widow who was separated from her husband at the time.
That was appropriate in this case because the separation was in effect, and thus the section applied. It goes on in paragraph 260:
Where the officer or soldier did not leave a widow eligible for an award under this section, but a child or children, the Defence Council may at their discretion award a gratuity to the child.
As we know, that happened; the 18-year-old daughter was awarded a gratuity. But again, the word "may" appears and it is at the discretion of the Defence Council.
I have seen no evidence in this case of any exercise of discretion having been involved. From my reading of the papers and letters, what happened occurred automatically, as though the regulations said, "This shall happen", rather than "This should be given some thought before a final decision is made."
To sum up, there is uncertainty in the law and the regulations. Does the Minister think that that uncertainty can be cleared up? I am not necessarily opposed to the intention of the regulations, which is to look after dependants in the event of the death of a soldier during his time in the Army. But the provision should be clarified, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
Then there was administrative bungling. Apologies have been received by the family from the Ministry of Defence on that count, so perhaps the Minister need not comment at length about that, except in so far as it has a bearing on the equity and fairness of the case, and in so far as it relates to the confusion which was clearly in the mind of Corporal Owen, who believed, until he died, that what he wanted to happen would happen. In my view, nothing happened to make him believe anything to the contrary.
Some compensation should be paid to the mother, to the family, because they and Corporal Owen were effectively, if not deliberately, misled, and at the time and since that has caused great distress and uncertainty to the family, certainly for the two years or so since Corporal Owen died.
I hope that the Minister will be positive in response to the three major points I have made—the uncertainty of the law, the bungling of the administration involved and the need in equity for some compensation for Mrs. Nooney. I look forward to his reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my

hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on securing this Adjournment debate and I pay tribute to the considerable interest he has shown in this case and to the support he has given to Mrs. Nooney and her family. I am sure she is most appreciative of all the efforts he has made during these months — indeed, almost a year—in pursuit of her interests and those of her late son.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of wide-ranging issues relating to the "Army Pensions Warrant" and the armed forces policy concerning personnel who become ill, particularly in respect of retention in service and financial guidance. Before dealing with the specific points raised by my hon. Friend—and I shall, in the time available, deal with them as fully as I can —I will set out briefly the history of this sad case concerning some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Michael Owen was a Corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, who was due to leave the Army on completion of a 22-year engagement on 22 July 1985. As my hon. Friend knows, when a service man completes 22 years' reckonable service he is eligible on discharge to be granted an immediate pension and a non-taxable terminal grant. Corporal Owen was admitted to hospital on 15 June 1985, about five weeks before he was due to leave the Army. In these circumstances and in accordance with normal practice, he was automatically retained in the Service on full pay. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that practice is generous and humanitarian.
Sadly, Corporal Owen died of cancer on 2 October 1985, while still on full pay. He was never discharged. His widow would have been granted a gratuity, equal to the amount of the terminal grant, for which he would have been eligible had he been invalided from the Army on the date that he died. However, as he was separated from his wife, he did not leave a widow eligible for the award and, in accordance with the provisions of the "Army Pensions Warrant", the money was paid to his daughter.
As my hon. Friend stated earlier, the problem arises over the fact that Mrs. Nooney considers that the gratuity paid on her son's death should have formed part of his estate and, as such, should have been paid to her as the named beneficiary of her son's will.
Those briefly are the facts. However, there are two or three points that I should like to go into in more detail and some questions raised by my hon. Friend which I would like to answer rather more fully. I hope it will become clear that everything done by the Army during the last few months of Corporal Owen's life was done with his best interests in mind.
I shall deal first with Corporal Owen's retention in the Army past his due date of discharge. For compassionate reasons, it is our practice to postpone a soldier's discharge if he is in hospital on the due date. This is to the clear benefit of soldiers and their dependants. The soldier continues to receive his full pay and all the support the Army can provide. If he is married, he remains entitled to a married quarter. Although in Corporal Owen's case he would immediately have become eligible to be granted his pension if he had left the service this would not be the case for a soldier who had not given 22 years' service.
We certainly would not wish to introduce a system which resulted in all individuals who were unfit on the date that their engagement was due to terminate being discharged forthwith. Wherever possible we want to see them restored to full health before they return to civilian


life. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with that principle. Of course, if a soldier in hospital, who had completed his engagement, requested his immediate discharge, no obstacle would be placed in his way. He would be medically boarded and would then be released to pension and lose his service pay, of course, although still entitled to service medical care. However, at no time did Corporal Owen ask for a medical discharge. Indeed, he expressed a clear wish to the doctor in charge of his case that he wanted to remain in the Army.
Service medical regulations stipulate that an individual who is in hospital on the date of his normal termination of service is to be retained on full pay until in-patient treatment ceases to be required or five months have elapsed since he was last on duty. By the five-month point it is normal—this can be delayed—for a medical board to be held, which will either recommend a medical discharge or, if the individual is only part way through his engagement and has a good chance of recovery, the continuance of treatment with periodic future boards up to a maximum of 18 months. Under this system Corporal Owen would have been due a medical board by November, but an earlier board could have been arranged had he requested it. If he had been medically discharged he would have received an invaliding pension and terminal grant and may also have been eligible for a war pension from the Department of Health and Social Security.
My hon. Friend has raised the matter of the element of discretion in the relevant articles of the "Army Pensions Warrant". Where these state that
a gratuity may be granted"—
my hon. Friend stressed the word may—that should not be taken to imply any discretion other than to pay or withhold the appropriate sum. Furthermore, that discretion itself can be exercised only within certain limits. Article 250 of the warrant provides that where there is an eligible widow a gratuity may or may not be paid to her. No further discretion is allowed for save that the Defence Council may divert a part of that sum to any eligible children.
Article 260 provides that where there is no eligible widow a gratuity may or may not be paid to an eligible child or children. Where there is no eligible wife or children Article 177 provides that a lump sum may be paid to a soldier's estate. It should be noted that the discretion to make such a payment arises only in those circumstances. If there is a wife or child the only choice is whether to pay them or not.
The Army is very much aware that it has a great obligation towards its sick and injured and to their dependants. By definition soldiers may be required to risk their lives for their country and they are entitled to expect the best support possible for them and their families, including immediate payment of pensions and gratuities where appropriate. Were the rules to be changed so that any benefits owing would pass under the deceased's will, it would be necessary in all cases to demand that probate, or letters of administration, be obtained before the terminal benefits could be paid. This would inevitably involve the dependants of soldiers in additional worry, delay and expense. Obviously we would not wish to move in this direction. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I have asked that consideration be given to the possibility of introducing a limited option which would allow

divorced soldiers without dependent children, if they so wished, the opportunity to nominate a particular individual to receive their death benefit. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a matter which requires careful study and, of course, it will not benefit in any way the estate or dependants of the late Corporal Owen. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the initiative that the Ministry is pleased to take.
We know that on 27 June 1985 Corporal Owen signed a will leaving all his estate, including his service benefits, to his mother, Mrs. Nooney. The evidence suggests he was not aware on 27 June that under the "Army Pensions Warrant" if he died in service his service benefits would go to his daughter, not his mother. If he had been aware, he could have initiated steps to change matters. That is common ground between my hon. Friend and myself.
In view of the issues which this case has highlighted, I am instructing my officials to re-examine the procedures for financial counselling of patients in hospital, including formal communication in writing. It will be appreciated that this is a subject that needs to be considered with great care in view of the possible psychological effects on a patient, particularly on one whose death could be imminent. I have therefore asked for consideration to be given to how best patients can be made aware, on being admitted to hospital, of the ways in which they might be financially affected, including the implications of remaining in the service and the consequences of being medically discharged; and to how further financial counselling might be made available on request.
One other point that has emerged from our inquiries is the fact that Corporal Owen was asked to sign a form whilst in hospital to extend his service. My hon. Friend referred to that in some detail. That incident has caused his mother a degree of concern as she feels that it was the real reason why she did not receive the death gratuity.
It is true that while in hospital Corporal Owen was asked to sign this form which deferred the termination of his colour service until 22 December 1985. That was requested purely as an administrative tidying up exercise by those responsible for maintaining his record of service. As an in-patient there was no requirement for him to sign such a form. The procedure was invalid since extensions of service must be agreed before the completion of the earlier contract, the completion of Corporal Owen's period of engagement. The form is designed for use in the unit where it can be witnessed at the time of signature by an authorised officer. Although there has been some difficulty in establishing exactly when Corporal Owen signed the form, we know that, when he had done so, the form was returned to his former unit which was on exercise at Otterburn where it was countersigned and dated by the administrative officer. That was some two months after the due date of his discharge.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for that incorrect procedure. While it is regrettable that Corporal Owen was asked to sign the form, I assure my hon. Friend that it made no material difference. As I have said, the evidence suggests that Corporal Owen wished to remain in the Army and not be discharged. However, to avoid any recurrence of that situation I issued appropriate instructions. In September 1986 those instructions were reissued to all manning and records officers to prevent any such unfortunate recurrence.
Various questions have been asked about whether Corporal Owen understood the implications of remaining


on full pay. The service medical authorities are, however, very clear that Corporal Owen specifically stated that he did not wish to be discharged. Against this background, the medical staffs formed the view that to initiate a medical discharge could, in Corporal Owen's case, have had a harmful psychological effect which might have further undermined his health.
Corporal Owen's finances do not appear to have suffered in any way. While alive he remained on full pay rather than pension and when deceased the gratuity payable equalled the terminal grant that he would have received on discharge. As the terminal grant is calculated on the basis of length of reckonable service, the amount payable actually increased as a result of the extension of his service.
To sum up, taking first the broader issues raised, I must thank my hon. Friend for raising this debate and providing the opportunity for me to examine the procedures and rules governing discharges and related payments. I am satisfied that in general terms the procedures are just, humane and serve the armed forces' needs very well.
However, there is room for improvement and as a result of the investigations arising out of this case, I intend to review the question of counselling service men in hospital at the time of their discharge date, and, as I have said, to examine the possibility of introducing limited nomination schemes under the "Army Pensions Warrant". I have already issued instructions that the form mentioned by my hon. Friend should not be used for service men in hospital. All those are improvements to deal with cases such as that raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend has also stated that Corporal Owen's mother considers that she should receive a payment equal to the sum paid to her granddaughter on the grounds that her son's intentions were thwarted by the provisions of the "Army Pensions Warrant". I have listened carefully to all the points raised this evening and, although I am already very familiar with this case, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will read the record again and seriously reflect on it. I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.